Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Recommended Posts

I agree 100%.

Banks and banking is a red herring. When people find it hard to obtain credit it is usually the 'market' forcing a necessary correction that causes short term pain and leads to long term correction.

The recent reaction if governments has been to boost the credit ponzi by becoming lenders themselves either by stupid schemes like 'right to buy' or implicit support like fannie and Freddie, by lax regulation thus destroying the competitiveness of banks who play fair, or by bailing out the risk takers and handing cash to btl's etc.

Finally when the markets "call" their game, they respond with the ultimate bailout , the printing press.

A run on Gbp or usd will finally crash their game, god help us then

exactly. banks arent lending because they dont want to.

if they dont lend when in fact the risk is small and the return is high, theyre losing money. if other banks take advantage of this situation and make profits from making more loans, then other banks will follow.

thats how the market works.

you cant just tell banks to lend becuase that creates an artificial market and price distortions.

theyre not lending because they dont want to. you have to fix the underlying problem of why they dont want to lend, not force lending out into the economy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

My wife is officially "economically inactive" but as the one who pays the credit card bills, I beg to differ.

Presumably if I stop work and live off unearned investment income, I'd also be "economically inactive".

But neither of us would be a drag on the taxpayer or the economy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

exactly. banks arent lending because they dont want to.

if they dont lend when in fact the risk is small and the return is high, theyre losing money. if other banks take advantage of this situation and make profits from making more loans, then other banks will follow.

thats how the market works.

you cant just tell banks to lend becuase that creates an artificial market and price distortions.

theyre not lending because they dont want to. you have to fix the underlying problem of why they dont want to lend, not force lending out into the economy.

They refuse to lend to blackmail the government into removing the riskiest part of the lending from them.

Queue mortgage indemnity, council schemes, First buy and now business underwriting. Net result banks lend and get bonuses from it but as usual taxpayer's fund the losses.

Edited by Democorruptcy
Link to post
Share on other sites

The market these days seems to be an arrangement wherein taxpayer money is transferred to failed speculators who then attempt to make good their losses by further speculation.

Thus each new bout of money printing by the Central Banks is anxiously awaited by these 'capitalists' and followed by a brief period of celebration and then another tense period until the next tranche of taxpayer backed cash arrives.

What any of this has got to do with real wealth creation is hard to discern, but it does have the benefit of making a small number of speculators fabulously wealthy, which I guess is the point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The market these days seems to be an arrangement wherein taxpayer money is transferred to failed speculators who then attempt to make good their losses by further speculation.

Thus each new bout of money printing by the Central Banks is anxiously awaited by these 'capitalists' and followed by a brief period of celebration and then another tense period until the next tranche of taxpayer backed cash arrives.

What any of this has got to do with real wealth creation is hard to discern, but it does have the benefit of making a small number of speculators fabulously wealthy, which I guess is the point.

Yes, that is the point of the system, and why the left gets so much funding for it's state based solutions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

exactly. banks arent lending because they dont want to.

if they dont lend when in fact the risk is small and the return is high, theyre losing money. if other banks take advantage of this situation and make profits from making more loans, then other banks will follow.

thats how the market works.

you cant just tell banks to lend becuase that creates an artificial market and price distortions.

theyre not lending because they dont want to. you have to fix the underlying problem of why they dont want to lend, not force lending out into the economy.

+1

Any businesses that cannot survive in the current climate are finished because this is the new reality

And banks know this

Plus they are desperately trying to build up their capital reserves for when the Euro implodes

:blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

exactly. banks arent lending because they dont want to.

if they dont lend when in fact the risk is small and the return is high, theyre losing money. if other banks take advantage of this situation and make profits from making more loans, then other banks will follow.

thats how the market works.

you cant just tell banks to lend becuase that creates an artificial market and price distortions.

theyre not lending because they dont want to. you have to fix the underlying problem of why they dont want to lend, not force lending out into the economy.

Is it because it is not quite as easy to sell bad debt on anymore?....the markets are saturated in debt as it is, a very low demand for debt....also interest margins are very small, also they now require more capital to function, also the economy has very low growth, also credit ratings have deteriorated, also the ones they want to lend to don't want to borrow money. :unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The market these days seems to be an arrangement wherein taxpayer money is transferred to failed speculators who then attempt to make good their losses by further speculation.

Thus each new bout of money printing by the Central Banks is anxiously awaited by these 'capitalists' and followed by a brief period of celebration and then another tense period until the next tranche of taxpayer backed cash arrives.

What any of this has got to do with real wealth creation is hard to discern, but it does have the benefit of making a small number of speculators fabulously wealthy, which I guess is the point.

Governments are propping up the banking system because the banking system is propping up governments

And that is why we are all screwed.

BTW Ireland's richest man just went bankrupt - meanwhile people on benefits are getting 5% pay rises.

:blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

Any businesses that cannot survive in the current climate are finished because this is the new reality

And banks know this

Plus they are desperately trying to build up their capital reserves for when the Euro implodes

:blink:

I have been racking my brains to think of how they can get out of this and I can't come up with anything

the markets are frankly an irrelevent set of leeches in all this, a bit like vultures, the problem is debt and increasing debt which has gone too far.

if the Euro implodes it will take a lot of other stuff with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been racking my brains to think of how they can get out of this and I can't come up with anything

the markets are frankly an irrelevent set of leeches in all this, a bit like vultures, the problem is debt and increasing debt which has gone too far.

if the Euro implodes it will take a lot of other stuff with it.

The markets are just people with money to invest

And what they are doing is refusing to lend money to people they know are unlikely to pay it back

Not sure how that makes them leeches?

The Euro will implode because the model was doomed from the start - not because of markets

Even Jacques Delors seems to accept this.

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Always amusing that those who dislike the 'markets' the most are also the ones most keen to borrow money from them.

Very true. An ironic. Who are these bond 'vigilantes' that dare not to buy our bonds. The like of Pimco and other big bond funds. Who are they to say they no longer want to buy our bonds? We should track down these people and hold them to account ! :ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very true. An ironic. Who are these bond 'vigilantes' that dare not to buy our bonds. The like of Pimco and other big bond funds. Who are they to say they no longer want to buy our bonds? We should track down these people and hold them to account ! :ph34r:

There is a street in our town called Market Street

perhaps they live there?

:unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Always amusing that those who dislike the 'markets' the most are also the ones most keen to borrow money of them.

The alternative to free markets is theft under threats of violence, yet some seem to be calling for the latter. Strange, really.

Edited by Traktion
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pestons program summed it up nicely

The Communist Party in China pursuing left wing ideology managed to starve 30-60 million of its own citizens to death

So they decided to give capitalism a try for 10 years

and managed to amass a surplus of 3 Trillion Dollars

The reason we are screwed is because we haven't had Capitalism in the West for decades

We have had a watered down form of Socialism

Big changes are coming and it isn't the death of Capitalism

What we are seeing is the final death of Socialism.

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

And how well do markets function without a state to give protection to property rights, uphold law and order and provide security?

Not well.

States don't protect property rights, they violate them. Try saying 'no thanks' the next time the state asks for your property in the form of taxation.

States aren't needed to uphold law and order either. These services do not need to be monopolised and only provided by the state.

As for security, the state romping around the globe picking fights, isn't making me feel safe. Defensive security services do not need to be monopolised by a single provider either (ie. by the state).

Having a free market offers people a choice. Removing the free market is replacing choice with theft and threats of violence. If you want the latter, fine, but let's call a spade a space.

Link to post
Share on other sites

States don't protect property rights, they violate them. Try saying 'no thanks' the next time the state asks for your property in the form of taxation.

They can violate them. But by and large the provide services to the people and people are happy to have it. I have no doubt a vote would be massively against the abolition of the state. And they do protect property rights, if someone nicks your car, you can go to the police.

All of that needs paying for of course, and it has to be by taxes or else freeloaders will get out of it and if you let them get away with it, everyone else stops paying too.

States aren't needed to uphold law and order either. These services do not need to be monopolised and only provided by the state.

I think they are. I know of no other model that exists in a society of any size. Maybe where the people are few, where everyone knows everyone, and the land is plentiful, but not in a crowded area. You need rules and you need them enforced.

As for security, the state romping around the globe picking fights, isn't making me feel safe. Defensive security services do not need to be monopolised by a single provider either (ie. by the state).

If you dont have a single point of control over security, you lose. As for feeling safe, there are no guarantees. Other states will take the resources off of the people in those states if they cannot organise themselves properly, its the way it is. Anarchistic states are particularly easy to loot as there is no coherent resistance.

Having a free market offers people a choice. Removing the free market is replacing choice with theft and threats of violence. If you want the latter, fine, but let's call a spade a space.

On the contrary, being weak leaves you far more open to violence. Think you can remove the threat by removing the state? If you choose to live in populated lands, you will be ruled by a state. If you do away with it, another state will take you over in double quick time if you have anything useful there, and if you dont it will be bands of roving militia killing each other. Try feeling safe in Somalia and having people respect your property rights there. You will be praying for taxation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They can violate them. But by and large the provide services to the people and people are happy to have it. I have no doubt a vote would be massively against the abolition of the state. And they do protect property rights, if someone nicks your car, you can go to the police.

All of that needs paying for of course, and it has to be by taxes or else freeloaders will get out of it and if you let them get away with it, everyone else stops paying too.

I don't want others not to be able to go to the government for services... that's up to them. I just don't agree that people should be forced to subscribe for said services. I don't need anyone to vote for this either - I don't want them to do anything for me, other than leave me alone.

The state takes more from me than any criminal ever has. The government has taken me for thousands... every year. On the other hand, I've had a couple of push bikes stolen by others over the years and that's about it.

If you want to pay the state, to provide police and courts, to help you protect your property, fair enough. Why do you want to force this onto everyone else?

Please list these mythical things that someone opting out of state governance would be 'free loading'? Regardless, doing something for someone and then forcing payment whether they wanted it or not is daft.

I think they are. I know of no other model that exists in a society of any size. Maybe where the people are few, where everyone knows everyone, and the land is plentiful, but not in a crowded area. You need rules and you need them enforced.

The size of a society is a red herring - the size of a society does not stop people knowing what is right or wrong. Law forms from the bottom up, if you allow it to. This is the basis of a kritarchy, rather than a monarchy or oligarchy.

Not having state administered law and order does not mean lawlessness. It just means that legal services, and the mechanisms to implement them, are provided by individuals in a free market instead.

If you dont have a single point of control over security, you lose. As for feeling safe, there are no guarantees. Other states will take the resources off of the people in those states if they cannot organise themselves properly, its the way it is. Anarchistic states are particularly easy to loot as there is no coherent resistance.

Having more than one agency providing defence services does not mean that there will be no defence services. If there is a threat of invasion, people can buy insurance against it, which would fund security services. Said services may provide everything from defending your home from a lone thief to a state rolling the tanks in.

Anarchic Ireland resisted being conquered for 100s of years. It took so long that many soldiers settled and learned the language and adopted the culture. Without a central tax base, there was little for the invaders to steal - they were better off just living by similar rules to the locals.

As for the amount spent, it would depend on how much people feared for their safety. I doubt many would want to pay for attacks on other countries, nor find it morally justifiable.

I'm sure some wouldn't want to pay insurance against attack by others either, but that's up to them; they would have to defend themselves. Whether they received some perceived security from others paying for protection or not is beside the point.

On the contrary, being weak leaves you far more open to violence. Think you can remove the threat by removing the state? If you choose to live in populated lands, you will be ruled by a state. If you do away with it, another state will take you over in double quick time if you have anything useful there, and if you dont it will be bands of roving militia killing each other. Try feeling safe in Somalia and having people respect your property rights there. You will be praying for taxation.

A state isn't needed at all. They are only given power through people consenting. Without consent, the power base evaporates.

As you've (inevitably) raised Somalia, you could have at least done some research. The regions of Somalia which have rejected state control (again) have a strong sense of property rights. They also have a distributed rule of law, which operates as a kritarchy - free market law and order, from the bottom up.

The UN keeps trying to impose democracy on the region, causing all sorts of imbalances of power, but it seems they are not interested in politics. Ec

If you are genuinely interested, try reading 'The Law of the Somalis' (http://explorersfoundation.org/glyphery/139.html). You may find it a good read.

That's not to say Somalia is the best place to be - far from it - but much of their problems can be traced back to imperialism (including the UN's 'help') and location (bad land, drought etc).

Why do you think that allowing people to choose different providers of state services, would result in a war torn, poverty ridden nation?

Edited by Traktion
Link to post
Share on other sites

The makers are me, you and everyone else. It's just some have more power in the makers than others.

I'm not sure thats true though. I and a lot of people on this forum think contrary to what the Markets often want. Most people i know- like the scarecrow in the wizard of Oz- are of too little brain to understand the markets.

Who does that leave then?

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.

  • 441 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.