Confessions Of A Debtor

[shermanator]

Nonsense, and you know it. Also what's with the religious references? Calvinists? Presbytarian? absolution, benediction? Has nothing to do with religion - except to you, which makes it all the more amusing.

I mention the Daily Mail and certain branches of Protestantism as I believe they represent a microcosm of everything that's wrong with Anglo-Saxon society - the wrongs which created a giant Ponzi scheme which cetain posters here are happy to keep afloat with bail outs, bonuses, QE and a continuation of fractional reserve banking - this has been facilitated by one motive, greed.

It'd have been great if my venture had worked out and the unsecured loans repaid, it didn't and the bank took that risk with depositer's cash and through the wholesale market. Now they knew perfectly well, if it didn't work out they wouldn't get it back as it wasn't secured or a debenture.

Of course the irony of all this is, come the inevitable deflationary collapse of asset prices and for HPCers real estate, you'll go along to the bank with your perfect credit record and STR fund only to be told by the bank that sorry we're not lending as their loan books will necessarily severely deflate as their trillions in losses are realised. If you have 100% cash you'll do very well out of the looming deflation. The banking system may well become more 'French'.

Finally, what Mystic Merv has done is create 'moral hazard'....not only for the banksters but also the debtors. Think that's called the rule of unintended consequences.

[greengreen]

I mention the Daily Mail and certain branches of Protestantism as I believe they represent a microcosm of everything that's wrong with Anglo-Saxon society - the wrongs which created a giant Ponzi scheme which cetain posters here are happy to keep afloat with bail outs, bonuses, QE and a continuation of fractional reserve banking - this has been facilitated by one motive, greed.

It'd have been great if my venture had worked out and the unsecured loans repaid, it didn't and the bank took that risk with depositer's cash and through the wholesale market. Now they knew perfectly well, if it didn't work out they wouldn't get it back as it wasn't secured or a debenture.

Of course the irony of all this is, come the inevitable deflationary collapse of asset prices and for HPCers real estate, you'll go along to the bank with your perfect credit record and STR fund only to be told by the bank that sorry we're not lending as their loan books will necessarily severely deflate as their trillions in losses are realised. If you have 100% cash you'll do very well out of the looming deflation. The banking system may well become more 'French'.

Finally, what Mystic Merv has done is create 'moral hazard'....not only for the banksters but also the debtors. Think that's called the rule of unintended consequences.

La la la fingers in ears. look over there, what they are doing is really really bad, and not only that but its going to be bad for you too. Dont look at me its not my fault! I'm okay, I'm off to France.

It's funny, I dont know if this is a wind up, but just out of curiosity do you work at a bank? you certainly have the traits for it.

[Sour Mash]

I'm pretty shocked that so many people seem to be patting you on the back for this.

The moral, hard-working savers among us who have no debt are the one's paying the price for your mistakes.

I think an extra layer of immorality is bragging about it, adding insult to injury. You say you are not proud but a little more shame is required for your past crimes of theft in my opinion.

Borrowing money, spending it and then refusing to pay it back? This is the epitome of why this country is in the state is it. You are part of the problem.

~S~

No, the problem is that the banks didn't do their job properly and the politicians are hell bent on protecting them from the consequences of that.

The banks are supposed to lend sensible sums to people likely to pay it back.

In fact, they loaned massive amounts to people most unlikely to pay it back.

What's then supposed to happen is that the banks take the hit and their senior bondholders lose it all.

What's actually happened is that politicians throughout the Western World have heaped the losses onto the general taxpayer to save the skins of the rich elite. In some cases, the banksters losses have exceeded the ability of the very state to pay. Case in point, Ireland.

[Guest eight]

There are a variety of tricks that people do both in business and personally that I feel are an abuse of the system. What you are doing is one of them. I know of a variety of business people who have behaved legally, but have walked away from significant debts both to HMRC and other creditors but behaved in a disgraceful way. In my business I either wont deal with those businesses or their directors in future, or I will charge higher rates with payment up front. Alternatively I have had dealings with companies in the past who have struggled in their business but have tried and managed to pay back most or all of the money that they owed, I will deal with them in future, but not in the same way as above.

You must have some business if you can dictate terms to your clients/customers in this manner.

eight

[IWantItNow]

What is interesting is that you are technically right, you can easily walk away from unsecured debt if you are willing to bear the brunt of a degraded credit score.

Personally, I think that you are shooting yourself in the foot.

There are a variety of tricks that people do both in business and personally that I feel are an abuse of the system. What you are doing is one of them. I know of a variety of business people who have behaved legally, but have walked away from significant debts both to HMRC and other creditors but behaved in a disgraceful way. In my business I either wont deal with those businesses or their directors in future, or I will charge higher rates with payment up front. Alternatively I have had dealings with companies in the past who have struggled in their business but have tried and managed to pay back most or all of the money that they owed, I will deal with them in future, but not in the same way as above.

Your justification that becuase the banks behave badly, therefore you can, by not paying back the money, is ridiculous. I may feel the government are idiots but I will still pay my tax.

snip

You make it sound like you have a choice.

[uncle rogi]

'Breached the established rules of the game' - naive, as they continued a well established trend.

a trend yes, sure, ok i accept that, however the manner of the bailout was pretty much without precedent and fundamentally altered the landscape of modern finance and the overall supposed rules of the capitalist system this is the critical point.

But anyhow, so you concede that I am paying for something though, whether it should exist or not? That was the extent of my point.

that it was the extent of the point you where making is the problem as i see it, it makes for a very narrow and easily dismissed viewpoint, a dismissal which i feel i worded quite well.

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you"

This basic principle is obviously what you lack.

hardly lacking if at all, the basic point still is the bailouts changed the moral landscape people are merely adapting to it and in the OP's case he was well within his rights to walk away anyway his bad credit is his punishment, how much of a punishment he feels it is is entirely within his own self to feel/determine.

if the banks had not been bailed out he may well of repaid the loan (maybe over an extended period but still) and i would of understood that position as well, decisions and consequences change as the game changes, not such a hard concept to grasp is it ?

I object to the idea that there is no need for people to act - and feel - responsible for their debt. I think this is part of the reason that the country is in so much debt. A little more responsibility from every person in this country, better intentions to repay what we have borrowed and perhaps our situation would not be quite as bad today.

As for advertising this behaviour "as a guide for others", the OP has left me with a very bad taste in my mouth.

~S~

the sums are so vast in a lot of cases that no realistic attempt at repayment is practical, this is why bankruptcy was created, intention to repay is one thing ability is quite another, again as to the OP's behavior, he is totally within the law and his rights to walk away and suffer a poor credit rating end of story.

You seem to be confused about the difference between "blame" and "payment".

You are taking issue with a poster who said I was right in saying "HBoS didn't pay your debt, we did."

The interest on my and others savings has dropped so that banks can "recapitalise" i.e. steal money from savers by paying lower interest rates and from mortgagees, credit card debt holders and businesses by not passing on as large a drop in lending rates as the 0.5% base rate should allow. Therefore we are paying his bad debt not the bank.

Now you can blame him for taking the debt on or the banks for allowing him to take the debt on - but that has little to do with my statement of who is paying for it. If banks can pay out billions in bonuses they aren't paying it.

the banks in a lot of cases should be bust i.e. failed, this is the reality however harsh it may seem it is the inevitable result of the massive ponzi fraud they engaged in, the loan was made on the assumption of risk this was calculated and a premium added to cover the risk of default, so the situation would have been totally different had the banks been allowed to fail and the OP's response may well have been different, thus the whole re-capitalize at my expense is a false argument as we should be dealing with a bankruptcy reorganization process.

+ 1

Also future tax payers will pay for it, including today's children.

for the bailout yes, however as has been stressed over and over that has sod all to do with the OP's loan.

Default and clearance of debt is the ONLY way out of this mess by the way.

indeed, it is the only practical solution, one which the bailouts only make ultimately worse and more painful.

Borrowing money for your business and being unable to pay it back is a business deal.

Feeling great about this fact because you have "got one over on the banks" and publishing your story "as a guide" so that you can help others do the same is certainly not a business deal.

If I steal your car am I morally sound because you are insured anyway?

~S~

you are obviously having trouble accepting the sheer scale of the fraud and ponzi that has failed and then been propped up by the bailouts, the OP is simply pointing out his perfectly legal and morally justified reaction to this new world we have entered into post bailout.

oh and if you are stealing the car to prevent someone drink driving then it is morally sound etc etc etc etc...ad infinitum

[/font]

When you took out that loan you made a promise to pay it back (hence the definition of the word loan - something lent or furnished on condition of being returned).

which interestingly the terms of a credit agreement violate (in english common law) as the principle is created by the signed credit agreement with only a small fraction of actual money to back it up/justify it actually existing, so what is returned (the principle) was never lent in the first place, and in banking practice the principle is destroyed and only the interest booked as profit.

[douggggy]

You must have some business if you can dictate terms to your clients/customers in this manner.

eight

`you might not get paid, but you never forget`

[greengreen]

You must have some business if you can dictate terms to your clients/customers in this manner.

eight

Thanks for your comment! I would say that I dont dictate the terms to the clients, I make an offer to them based on their request but also factor in the risk associated with that client. We are only dealing with a very small minority of companies who we have had problems with. I am not so arrogant to assume that the product/services offered are head and shoulders above competitors, but factoring in some terms, such as payment in advance prevents another potential loss with the same directors/company.

[sun n sea]

If my Mummy & Daddy were filthy rich I'd be inclined to invite the bank manager to kiss my hairy @rse too.....

"I gave HBOS the finger and Mummy bought me a present"

[uncle rogi]

It allows people to construct a narrative in their mind that somehow they are acting morally, in revenge for a wrong committed.

indeed, a lot of these cases are exactly that, and many are perfectly legal to boot.

To just consider yourself as a good for nothing, selfish welcher wouldn't do at all for one's mental health.

indeed, some of the people walking away and 90% of the bankers involved are scum.

[mfp123]

at the end of the day his business failed and he couldnt pay back the loan. thats no big deal in my opinion. better than spending it on shopping and fast cars.

over 50% of new businesses fail withn 2 years. thats the way it goes. its not easy. banks know this and factor this into their loan rates.

if you expect every new business to succeed and pay back their loans you would never loan out any money. no loan is risk free.

even a company with a AAA credit rating still has risk that your money wont be paid back.

loan money to tesco and there is a percentage risk that you wont get it back. but thats the interest premium you get for taking that risk.

not every loan default is bad. if he was irresponsible with the money then there would be more to criticise, but a failed business is not top of the list to pour scorn on.

[shermanator]

Uncle Rogi, you continue to make some very valid points. If the banks had been allowed to fail, negating the need for bail outs, I would have paid back the loan over a period or come to a mutually agreeable settlement. Speaking personally, the rules of the game changed with the bail out and then the bonuses on top - well no regrets.

Broadening it out, I was surprised how meekly the Great British Public (hahaha) accepted the wisdom of the bail outs but reading through various correspondent's postings it doesn't surprise me - the ponzi hegemony is ingrained even in HPCers.

If in autumn 2008, the banks had gone to the wall, lil old me would've tried to repay my loan (as I suspect many others would too), the banks would've wound down their loan books thus causing a real estate bust that you could've all taken advantage of as the banks would be nationalized. Sadly, none of this happened and all we've seen is a last desperate attempt to keep the elite ponzi schemers from taking a massive hit at the taxpayer's expense. Seems to me the UK has the worst of all worlds.

Edited January 20, 2011 by shermanator

[R K]

Not this bullsh1t again.

The day law of contract is replaced by the 'moral obligation' to repay Bob Diamond, Fred Goodwin, Andy Hornby et al at the rate of 16-30% on money they get for free is the day the world has lost it's f*cking mind.

Get a grip for Christ's sakes.

[uncle rogi]

, but a failed business is not top of the list to pour scorn on.

indeed, all this scorn and anger is like the static build up in a storm cloud, unfortunately it is easily vented on various things/people that are undeserving of the sheer voltage unloaded.

understandable though as the sheer scale of it is so enormous and generates so much cognitive dissonance,and the people actually responsible are so well insulated, we are seeing in this thread and in society in general the results/fallout of this huge mess.

Uncle Rogi, you continue to make some very valid points.

i am trying (and a few other posters) to make the issues as plain as possible without relying for the most part on emotional and or moral arguments this makes some people uncomfortable as they realize the true scale and depth of the problems.

If in autumn 2008, the banks had gone to the wall, lil old me would've tried to repay my loan (as I suspect many others would too), the banks would've wound down their loan books thus causing a real estate bust that you could've all taken advantage of as the banks would be nationalized. Sadly, none of this happened and all we've seen is a last desperate attempt to keep the elite ponzi schemers from taking a massive hit at the taxpayer's expense. Seems to me the UK has the worst of all worlds.

indeed, and we could get back to a more sensible and beneficial system for everyone after the collapse, it would of been a huge mess and people would have lost savings etc but in the end it would have been better to just let it happen with minimal intervention.

Get a grip for Christ's sakes.

some people either cannot or do not want to, it seems...

[Tired of Waiting]

for the bailout yes, however as has been stressed over and over that has sod all to do with the OP's loan.

Bad loans were not a the root problem?

[R K]

some people either cannot or do not want to, it seems...

Well we can look at the argument, morally, from the other side.

i.e. Savers lend their money to borrowers and are happy to charge them 15-30% for that benefit but expect not only 15-30% return (compounded) but also insist on a moral obligation for 100% satisfaction on the debt. i.e. it's 'morally' secured.

Why aren't they arguing that it's userous (i.e. immoral) to charge someone 30% on a morally secure loan?

Clearly, if one wishes to build morality into risk pricing then one needs to also adjust the rate of return and it's pretty clear that in that case morally secured unsecure lending would carry rates not dissimilar (possibly even lower than, due to the simple lending process) of secured lending. So i'd guess credit cards borrowing might be 1-4% perhaps.

In other words the savers were creaming money of the unsecured debtors for years - and didn't complain at the excessive returns they were getting.

Edit: You could further argue that savers are being selfish in hoarding their funds i.e. the paradox of thrift argument/ error of comoposition or whatever you want to call it, rather than recylcing said earnings, but that's probably going too far given that the banksters do it for them anyway. But it's not dissimilar to the global imbalances problem and China/Germany surplus problems.

Edited January 20, 2011 by Red Karma

[uncle rogi]

Bad loans were not a the root problem?

actually no, not really, the main problem was the funding for a lot of them, very low reserve ratios and the availability of cheap money via the now proven ponzi of the mortgage backed security market was the cause i.e. if they had not got access to or were not allowed to borrow from those sources a lot of the economic activity around the housing market would never have occurred and thus the lending levels should have been lower overall, in fact the OP's loan may well have led to a successful business as the economic climate may well have supported it better we will never know now of course...

the problem was with over supply of cheaply sourced short term money pouring into the mortgage market in the UK and ireland and spain etc etc...and the artificial boom this created leading to huge general mal-investment of capital and economic activity and tax receipts on the back of it all grew and the public sector grew as a result of that etc etc etc

northern rock was funding themselves via this model/market and we saw what happened to them, the regulators failed(or bribed) the banks simply ran away with all the cash they could grab and left the mess for the government to sort out and for you and me to pay for, end of story.

so a bad loan as you put it is subjective, should the banks have said "hang on this is unsustainable we are lending into an unsustainable boom" of course they should have but no one did until it was to late, and many of them knew and went about committing criminal fraud to keep it going selling MBS to themselves via shell companies etc and lots of other stuff, all illegal.

where is the anger at them for the fraud and the lies ? the fact that the OP's business failed therefore has nothing to do with the overall mess as that was a juggernaut created by the western central banks in the late 90's.

Well we can look at the argument, morally, from the other side.

i.e. Savers lend their money to borrowers and are happy to charge them 15-30% for that benefit but expect not only 15-30% return (compounded) but also insist on a moral obligation for 100% satisfaction on the debt. i.e. it's 'morally' secured.

Why aren't they arguing that it's userous (i.e. immoral) to charge someone 30% on a morally secure loan?

So i'd guess credit cards borrowing might be 1-4% perhaps.

In other words the savers were creaming money of the unsecured debtors for years - and didn't complain at the excessive returns they were getting.

But it's not dissimilar to the global imbalances problem and China/Germany surplus problems.

all perfectly valid points, the moral arguments as i have been saying are misplaced at best and harmful at worst.

[greengreen]

where is the anger at them for the fraud and the lies ? the fact that the OP's business failed therefore has nothing to do with the overall mess as that was a juggernaut created by the western central banks in the late 90's.

I am genuinely trying to understand your point of view. I think there is anger with the banks and understandably so, as to what happens to them and what the government / FSA do or dont do is one part of this debate. But this is separate from the OPs loan and non-repayment issue.

all perfectly valid points, the moral arguments as i have been saying are misplaced at best and harmful at worst.

Looking asside from the moral point, I think that the OP raises problems for himself with the default that he made on the loan and I believe that it will ahve repercussions for him in future. At the age of under 30 his life may take many further twists and turns and this is certainly one issue I would not want hanging over my head, particularly when he has the ability to repay the debt.

If he doesnt care about his credit record, thats fair enough but at its simplest form, the credit history allows others to make a judgement about loaning or not loaning money to him in the future. It is simply a record, with no moral judgement whatsoever, noting that he didnt repay a loan. If he doesnt care, he doesnt care. As to how he justifies that in his mind is up to him and it seems he has chosen a reason for that.

From a moral point of view, I dont see how they can been seen as "misplaced at best and harmful at worst", not really, he took a loan, he couldnt repay it, he defaulted now he leaves the country blaming the banks. Morally, I dont see how disapproval of his actions, particularly when he had the option of repaying, can be seen as misplace and certainly not as harmful. Harmful to whom? not to me or others who have posted stating our point of view against his actions and by the sounds of it he wont by morally harmed by our point of view. But, people are entitled to express their moral point of view about the OP and to bring in the other side of the debate they can express their moral point of view against the banks for their behaviour.

If I have taken you out of context or missed your point, I apologise.

[shermanator]

I am genuinely trying to understand your point of view. I think there is anger with the banks and understandably so, as to what happens to them and what the government / FSA do or dont do is one part of this debate. But this is separate from the OPs loan and non-repayment issue.

Looking asside from the moral point, I think that the OP raises problems for himself with the default that he made on the loan and I believe that it will ahve repercussions for him in future. At the age of under 30 his life may take many further twists and turns and this is certainly one issue I would not want hanging over my head, particularly when he has the ability to repay the debt.

If he doesnt care about his credit record, thats fair enough but at its simplest form, the credit history allows others to make a judgement about loaning or not loaning money to him in the future. It is simply a record, with no moral judgement whatsoever, noting that he didnt repay a loan. If he doesnt care, he doesnt care. As to how he justifies that in his mind is up to him and it seems he has chosen a reason for that.

From a moral point of view, I dont see how they can been seen as "misplaced at best and harmful at worst", not really, he took a loan, he couldnt repay it, he defaulted now he leaves the country blaming the banks. Morally, I dont see how disapproval of his actions, particularly when he had the option of repaying, can be seen as misplace and certainly not as harmful. Harmful to whom? not to me or others who have posted stating our point of view against his actions and by the sounds of it he wont by morally harmed by our point of view. But, people are entitled to express their moral point of view about the OP and to bring in the other side of the debate they can express their moral point of view against the banks for their behaviour.

If I have taken you out of context or missed your point, I apologise.

Er, when have I blamed the bank for my business failure? I've been totally upfront, the business failed because I took wrong decisions and I won't even blame the recession. I repeat, I didn't have the money to repay the debt, my parents did. If blame is to be attributed anywhere, it is to be directed at the government and the BOE for the initial and subsequent bail outs (which many posters weirdly believe was the correct thing to do hmmm) that altered my moral compass and shone a light on the fractional reserve ponzi scheme which gets taxpayers on the hook for liabilities whilst the banksters are busy shovelling bonuses into their accounts.

Let's focus on facts and leave 'morality' (a highly subjective term) out of it. The banks have been bailed out to the tune of trillions, bonuses are flowing again like Champagne, QE is eroding purchasing power and the ponzi scheme is being kept afloat, thereby rendering many correspondents here in limbo and the economy in a Japan twilight zone. Let's fast forward to the ultimate endgame of nationalised banks, deflating loan books and an end to fractional reserve banking. Of course that will be a great disappontment to many HPCers who are hoping to ride the very greedy ponzi scheme that they profess to abhor.

[uncle rogi]

If I have taken you out of context or missed your point, I apologise.

not really, but here we go again..

the law says the OP is perfectly within his rights to default

the moral position (you are/seem to be espousing) is that he should of re payed, therefore in my opinion this is unhelpful at best and harmful at worst, as morality has little if any role in business.(as it stands within this context) making him feel bad for something he should not feel bad for can have very bad consequences.

bankruptcy and IVA's etc are there to help people, like it or not that is the system.

the law says the banks should have gone under

the moral position also leans towards this as being correct

the government intervened and gave them your money

this is why people are mad and not willing to go along (at all in some cases) with a system that appears totally beyond the pale.

end of story.

[Riedquat]

as morality has little if any role in business

Which it should do, and anyone who uses this as a defence deserves no sympathy whatsoever. There is never any defence for acting immorally, the only argument should be what is moral and what is not (and I agree with the point of view that a business going under and being unable to pay it back, with the loan being entered in to with the full acceptance by both parties that that might happen, is nothing wrong).

[greengreen]

Er, when have I blamed the bank for my business failure? I've been totally upfront, the business failed because I took wrong decisions and I won't even blame the recession. I repeat, I didn't have the money to repay the debt, my parents did.

Looking at the facts:

Yes, your business failed irrespective of the banks.

You took a loan, you have the ability to repay it and an offer at no cost to yourself to do so. Yet you choose not to. You choose to have a bad credit history, that is your choice.

And again i say:

Looking asside from the moral point, I think that you raise problems for yourself with the default that you made on the loan and I believe that it will ahve repercussions for you in future. At under 30 your life may take many further twists and turns and this is certainly one issue I would not want hanging over my head, particularly when you have the ability to repay the debt. but again that is your choice.

If you dont care about your credit record, thats fair enough but at its simplest form, the credit history allows others to make a judgement about loaning or not loaning money to you in the future. It is simply a record, with no moral judgement whatsoever, noting that you didnt repay a loan. If you dont care, you dont care.

What about the big picture, what are the repercussions for you in future? What if you hate France? What if the french check your UK credit history if you ever want credit or even a french credit card? surely you know how much the french like their documentation.

These are all facts and questions that you need to be aware of, irrespective of the moral position. You choose to live with those decisions.

If blame is to be attributed anywhere, it is to be directed at the government and the BOE for the initial and subsequent bail outs (which many posters weirdly believe was the correct thing to do hmmm) that altered my moral compass and shone a light on the fractional reserve ponzi scheme which gets taxpayers on the hook for liabilities whilst the banksters are busy shovelling bonuses into their accounts.

Let's focus on facts and leave 'morality' (a highly subjective term) out of it. The banks have been bailed out to the tune of trillions, bonuses are flowing again like Champagne, QE is eroding purchasing power and the ponzi scheme is being kept afloat, thereby rendering many correspondents here in limbo and the economy in a Japan twilight zone. Let's fast forward to the ultimate endgame of nationalised banks, deflating loan books and an end to fractional reserve banking. Of course that will be a great disappontment to many HPCers who are hoping to ride the very greedy ponzi scheme that they profess to abhor.

This is IRRELEVANT to your loan situation and simply a argument that you construct in your head to justify your behaviour. You will still have to deal with the reality of your decision.

Again not from a moral standpoint, I dont expect you to agree with me and I hope that someone doesnt have the opportunity to say to you "I told you so" as really I dont care too much about it, you've made your decisions and youve justified it in your head. You are the one who has to live with those decision and if you are happy with all those then so be it, that's your outlook.

It takes a big person to admit that they blew it, and your parents have given you an out, both with the loan repayment and/or the offer of a free house - not many people have parents that can afford to do that. Why not ignore your pride, get the bailout from your parents and at least give you options for the future.

[Xurbia]

Er, when have I blamed the bank for my business failure? I've been totally upfront, the business failed because I took wrong decisions and I won't even blame the recession. I repeat, I didn't have the money to repay the debt, my parents did. If blame is to be attributed anywhere, it is to be directed at the government and the BOE for the initial and subsequent bail outs (which many posters weirdly believe was the correct thing to do hmmm) that altered my moral compass and shone a light on the fractional reserve ponzi scheme which gets taxpayers on the hook for liabilities whilst the banksters are busy shovelling bonuses into their accounts.

You are quite the hypocrite. The government and BoE are wrong, so that makes you right? You do blame the BoE and the government for your failure. Your 'moral compass' has been altered! WTF are you on about? I don't believe you ever had a moral compass in the first place. Your business failed because you didn't run it properly. You didn't even get a proper business loan. You need to face the facts: you are a failure and you need to change. You are now running away to France, on the back of your parent's money, because you're a failure. It's nothing to be ashamed of. I've made massive mistakes in my life but I learned from every single one of them. I would never gloat about being a loser and try to justify it though. That's exactly what you are doing. The problem lies with you, not the bank and not the BoE. You will continue to be a failure until you learn your lesson. If you cannot make it in Britain, as tough as it is, you'll not survive in France without your parent's help. I think your parents have set you up to fail by dropping all this cash in such immature hands.

I cannot blame you for disliking the BoE and the Labour government. Many of us here do too. I left Britain because of the Labour government but I didn't rip anyone off in the process. Stop gloating and go to France.Rest easy with your 15K of ill-gotten gains. You make Ronnie Biggs look like a proper amateur. I think my mocha and latte bill is more than that a year. I've sent a telegram to the criminal underground in France and warned them that Le Shermanator is coming to town. You might be able to steal some cheese or a pain au chocolat from a child in the street. "Watch it kid, I've lost my moral compass!"

Edited January 20, 2011 by Xurbia

[Tired of Waiting]

(...) and the availability of cheap money via the now proven ponzi of the mortgage backed security market (...)

That run out of new investors because ...

[uncle rogi]

That run out of new investors because ...

ponzi schemes always run out.

the only argument should be what is moral and what is not

unfortunately that argument would be endless, which is why we have laws and rules to remove moral bias from aspects of life, the problem is when bailouts come along and muddy the waters.

I don't believe you ever had a moral compass in the first place.

yeah belief of one form or another is all the system actually is and has been for at least 40 years, the problem is that people have seen the one rule for the few and one rule for the many writ large, with trillions on the price tags, and increasing numbers of them simply are not playing along any more.

good luck to them and good luck to you and your overpriced coffee.

However, you now know for a fact that bank losses (including yours) are being absorbed by everyone else - including future generations. So any argument that pertains to the idea that you wouldn't have defaulted then, but it's ok now, only joins the bandwagon of the bailout mentality and doesn't make sense.

except it does make a whole lot of sense and is entirely lawful in many cases, the future generations angle is redundant the bailout has extended this mess potentially over decades(certainly a lot longer than would of happened) just to bail out the bankers and property speculators and there crony politician mates. oh and the losses for his loan would of been absorbed in the normal course of the banks operation, it may have resulted in people paying 0.0000001% more on there unsecured borrowing but i doubt even that.

This is not about me being self-righteous. You think I like the way things are and are likely to evolve? It's simply that the principle is quite the same for you and others (whatever the scale) - expecting and in full knowledge that someone else will still have to pay the cost of your debt. You have no right to criticize the bail-out evolution of a system you have helped to corrupt.

yet he has every right to walk away whereas the bankers rode the ponzi into the ground and then cried for a bailout thus negating the very principles of a capitalist free market with the threat of bankruptcy reorganization hanging over your business decisions hence your logic just fails and i mean really just fails like...badly..

in fact have some cake and a little think about everything...