Rees-Mogg "Stop overseas charity - put money into housing"

[Social Justice League]

54 minutes ago, Blod said:

then reality will batter down the door and lay waste to the feckless.

lol, very well put.

[ThePrufeshanul]

3 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

In 1992 the ERM went badly wrong and the Tories got blamed (quite rightly as they were in charge), the fact that the other parties supported the policy was not a defence for the Tories.  The same for 2007 - maybe the Tories would have done the same but they didn't do it.  You can only get blamed for what you did.

That's fair enough however the ERM decision was a matter of political competence - politicians within the same party could have made different decisions.

In 2007 New Labour were following the Neoclassical orthodoxy pioneered by the Tories. It is this philosophy that is responsible for the current problems with the economy. 

Corbyn's Labour have now moved back to a more traditional Socialist agenda but personally I think it's entirely reasonable to blame them (and continue to blame them) fo rteh mess they have helped create.

[iamnumerate]

Just now, ThePrufeshanul said:

That's fair enough however the ERM decision was a matter of political competence - politicians within the same party could have made different decisions.

In 2007 New Labour were following the Neoclassical orthodoxy pioneered by the Tories. It is this philosophy that is responsible for the current problems with the economy. 

Corbyn's Labour have now moved back to a more traditional Socialist agenda but personally I think it's entirely reasonable to blame them (and continue to blame them) fo rteh mess they have helped create.

So do I, due to Labour's house price boom I will pay £107k* more total than I would have paid for my house by the time I pay off for mortgage and I blame all Labour MPs for that. 

*I allowed for the effect of interest rates changes, it would have only been £140k total including interest if it had not been for them.  Saying that I was luckier than many.

[PopGun]

4 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

In 1992 the ERM went badly wrong and the Tories got blamed (quite rightly as they were in charge), the fact that the other parties supported the policy was not a defence for the Tories.  The same for 2007 - maybe the Tories would have done the same but they didn't do it.  You can only get blamed for what you did.

And you can only predict what another government might have done on actions they make when it's their turn in power. And as Dorkins pointed out, they happily voted the bail outs through.

im really unsure why people still peddle this delusional myth that the Tories would have done anything differently.

Comparing dealing with a global financial crash to crisis 20 -30 years ago is also daft. Up there with the boomer's "we had double digit interest rates" trite nonsense in defence/justification of their HPI wealth.

[iamnumerate]

15 hours ago, PopGun said:

And you can only predict what another government might have done on actions they make when it's their turn in power. And as Dorkins pointed out, they happily voted the bail outs through.

im really unsure why people still peddle this delusional myth that the Tories would have done anything differently.

Comparing dealing with a global financial crash to crisis 20 -30 years ago is also daft. Up there with the boomer's "we had double digit interest rates" trite nonsense in defence/justification of their HPI wealth.

1) The bail outs were not the problem, the bad loans, HPI etc which caused the crash was the problem under a good government we would not have had the lending boom that caused this problem and this website would not exist. 

2)In the ERM crisis other countries did have bank bail outs, we didn't because the bank of England had done a good job regulating the banks sadly Gordon changed that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_banking_rescue

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_banking_crisis_of_1990s

 

[PopGun]

3 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

1) The bail outs were not the problem, the bad loans, HPI etc which caused the crash was the problem under a good government we would not have had the lending boom that caused this problem and this website would not exist. 

2)In the ERM crisis other countries did have bank bail outs, we didn't because the bank of England had done a good job regulating the banks sadly Gordon changed that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_banking_rescue

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_banking_crisis_of_1990s

 

1. ERM and Credit Crunch were both completely different.

2. It doesn't detract from the ridiculous initial assertion that the Tories would have done anything different in 2008, or curbed HPI.

Edited July 14, 2017 by PopGun

[iamnumerate]

20 minutes ago, PopGun said:

1. ERM and Credit Crunch were both completely different.

2. It doesn't detract from the ridiculous initial assertion that the Tories would have done anything different in 2008, or curbed HPI.

I don't think the Tories would have removed the bank of England from being in charge of bank supervision as Gordon did. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Services_Authority

No banks failed before the FSA despite 2 world wars, the great recession, oil price shock etc, which did happen in other countries.

[PopGun]

1 hour ago, iamnumerate said:

I don't think the Tories would have removed the bank of England from being in charge of bank supervision as Gordon did. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Services_Authority

No banks failed before the FSA despite 2 world wars, the great recession, oil price shock etc, which did happen in other countries.

You don't think... the Tories would.. no banks bailouts yet you don't think the Tories would in 2008 had they been in power at the time..

what you think and what would logically likely have happened isn't the same.

come on you're better than this.

Edited July 14, 2017 by PopGun

[iamnumerate]

8 minutes ago, PopGun said:

You don't think... the Tories would.. no banks bailouts yet you don't think the Tories would in 2008 had they been in power at the time..

what you think and what would logically likely have happened isn't the same.

come on you're better than this.

Ok how about this, Gordon created the FSA and he should bear the blame for its failings.  Personally I don't think the bank bails were the problem - the fact that they needed bailing out (never happened before despite 2 world wars, the great recession, oil price shock etc ) was the problem. 

I do know that the Tories abolished the FSA, I wish it had never been created.

The Tories should be blamed for their failings (HTB etc) , Labour for theirs (FSA, Tax credits, spending too much), neither should be blamed for what the other did wouldn't you agree?

BTW I don't like the Tories - I dislike Labour more.

[PopGun]

6 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

Ok how about this, Gordon created the FSA and he should bear the blame for its failings.  Personally I don't think the bank bails were the problem - the fact that they needed bailing out (never happened before despite 2 world wars, the great recession, oil price shock etc ) was the problem. 

I do know that the Tories abolished the FSA, I wish it had never been created.

The Tories should be blamed for their failings (HTB etc) , Labour for theirs (FSA, Tax credits, spending too much), neither should be blamed for what the other did wouldn't you agree?

BTW I don't like the Tories - I dislike Labour more.

Well I'm no fan of Brown or New Labour. Not sure how his FSA creation adds any substance to your Tories would have allowed the banks to fail argument either. I think you're simply digging yourself deeper with this one.

i know brown deregulated and expanded credit (as did Clinton) on the advice of right wing liberal globalist bankers. Yep pretty sure Cam and Ozz would have stuck two fingers up at them and averted financial catastrophe...

Edited July 14, 2017 by PopGun

[The Young and the Nestless]

On 13/07/2017 at 10:04 AM, bear.getting.old said:

So foreign aid is basically a bribe to corrupt governments to keep the peace. It does nothing to eliminate poverty because those governments keep it so they can claim more foriegn aid. Eg India, who are so poor they have a space program. Your logic is flawed. Throwing money at countries to keep migrants away from the UK isn't going to work. Only a strict closed border policy is and a clampdown on illegals with records kept of who leaves and who enters.

 

On 11/07/2017 at 11:15 AM, iamnumerate said:

That assumes the money is being well spent.  I am not sure if that is the case.

Already written a post explaining how aid can work within this very topic here .

TL;DR?

Edited July 14, 2017 by The Young and the Nestless

[iamnumerate]

On 14/07/2017 at 8:32 PM, PopGun said:

Well I'm no fan of Brown or New Labour. Not sure how his FSA creation adds any substance to your Tories would have allowed the banks to fail argument either. I think you're simply digging yourself deeper with this one.

i know brown deregulated and expanded credit (as did Clinton) on the advice of right wing liberal globalist bankers. Yep pretty sure Cam and Ozz would have stuck two fingers up at them and averted financial catastrophe...

You are not understanding my argument, which is  "Banks did not fail under previous  Governments despite various disasters like Great Recession, Wars etc (a fact) because of they were better supervised (an opinion but no one is calling for the return of the FSA today).  Therefore if Labour* had not changed the supervision the banks would not have needed to be rescued/allowed to fail.  Labour introduced the FSA - a much factor in the banks being reckless and without that we would not be in the mess we are today. 

I have given evidence for this, other countries had banks failing in the 1990s - we didn't.  I can give evidence that we unlike other countries didn't have a high street bank fail during the 20th century - if that would change your view.

 

*If another party Tories, Lib Dems, UKIP, Greens, Monster Raving Loony had got rid of the bank of england's supervision and brought in the FSA then I would attack them as well.  Fortunately the Tories went back to the status quo as soon as they had got elected.

Edited July 17, 2017 by iamnumerate

[jonb2]

3 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

You are not understanding my argument, which is  "Banks did not fail under previous  Governments despite various disasters like Great Recession, Wars etc (a fact) because of they were better supervised (an opinion but no one is calling for the return of the FSA today).  Therefore if Labour* had not changed the supervision the banks would not have needed to be rescued/allowed to fail.  Labour introduced the FSA - a much factor in the banks being reckless and without that we would not be in the mess we are today. 

It was the deregulation of the banks and financial systems that sowed the seed of greed. AKA, the big bang, the main cause of 2008.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_(financial_markets)

[iamnumerate]

46 minutes ago, jonb2 said:

It was the deregulation of the banks and financial systems that sowed the seed of greed. AKA, the big bang, the main cause of 2008.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_(financial_markets)

I think that is partly true but the FSA must bare a lot of the blame - afterall there were 16 years without the FSA and without problems and the problems happened only 10 years after the FSA was created.

 

Interestingly Thatcher was forced to do Big Bang it was not something that she could easily have avoided.

Quote

The Big Bang was the result of an agreement in 1983 by the Thatcher government and the London Stock Exchange to settle a wide-ranging anti-trust case that had been initiated during the previous government by the Office of Fair Trading against the London Stock Exchange under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956.

 

[iamnumerate]

Interestingly even Gordon said that he was partially responsible

Quote

"We know in retrospect what we missed. We set up the Financial Services Authority (FSA) believing that the problem would come from the failure of an individual institution," he said. "So we created a monitoring system which was looking at individual institutions. That was the big mistake. We didn't understand how risk was spread across the system, we didn't understand the entanglements of different institutions with the other and we didn't understand even though we talked about it just how global things were, including a shadow banking system as well as a banking system. That was our mistake, but I'm afraid it was a mistake made by just about everybody who was in the regulatory business."

BBC Article: Gordon Brown admits 'big mistake' over banking crisis.^[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_(financial_markets)

[jonb2]

8 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

I think that is partly true but the FSA must bare a lot of the blame - afterall there were 16 years without the FSA and without problems and the problems happened only 10 years after the FSA was created.

 

Interestingly Thatcher was forced to do Big Bang it was not something that she could easily have avoided.

Iam - I pointed out that our collective belief in the current political system is to our disadvantage. It has not been fit for purpose for 50 years. Thatcher was a disaster, she was just a waxwork made in the mould of Ayn Rand.

It's now rotting to the core. America is further along with this societal holocaust. People look at our parties like they look at football teams. Having the megacorps and their financial Rasputins will do for us unless we get off the (un)merry-go-round and start planning a new system.

All progress in history has come from societal cohesion, even in war, we made things better by working together.

Edited July 17, 2017 by jonb2

[iamnumerate]

8 minutes ago, jonb2 said:

Iam - I pointed out that our collective belief in the current political system is to our disadvantage. It has not been fit for purpose for 50 years.

I would agree that the current system is not to advantage.  I think the solution would be to have PR, more localism and more referenda.

[iamnumerate]

9 minutes ago, jonb2 said:

All progress in history has come from societal cohesion, even in war, we made things better by working together.

Are you sure?  There were lots of social problems during the industrial revolution - look at the swing riots, luddites etc but it did create progress.

[jonb2]

11 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

Are you sure?  There were lots of social problems during the industrial revolution - look at the swing riots, luddites etc but it did create progress.

True. I thought about whether I could verify it as I wrote it. Shoot first I admit :-)

But it means there is something worse 'underneath' these days. I've been around a while and never have I felt this country and a lot of the world on such a collision course with 'bad things about to happen' without a counter to balance it. The Quakers in the Victorian times, the labour movement at the end of the first world war, Bevan's vision after WW2,  the hippies against Vietnam etc.

All this sounds a bit lefty when I look at it. But the world is now driven by such a deviant greed at any cost - I worry we are about to enter a new very dark age. Many countries are being destabilised by Wall Street despotism. Consumption of shiny things is the new religion.

We are losing what makes us human.