Momentum's viral video attacking HPI

[Pop321]

21 hours ago, Si1 said:

It's more important that the point is being made. That the non boomer perspective is now being broadcast.

I agree with you and got a bit lost on this thread. It mentions Jeremy Corburn so it becomes a left wing, right wing debate. 

It does challenge the boomer and these are thoughts shared amongst my many associates age 60+. Maybe best then we don't talk about that at stick with disagreeing with it because it mentions JC. 

My politics. I sit in the top 2% financially. I could never vote for it myself but everyone else gives me the mandate then I accept their decision and thank them. A hypocrite...definitely. 

Yeah, f5cking Judeans peoples front.

[dugsbody]

On 28/07/2017 at 8:48 AM, Greg Bowman said:

Why odd we all look through filters mine just happens to be a little more up beat even though I want HPC and I am betting on it fairly substantially having STR'd three weeks ago

So you now own no property at all? I find that an interesting choice. If you want to buy your current house back in two or three years time what does the math say about the amount it is required to fall in order to break even? Taking into account huge stamp duty, extra money spent on rent instead of low rate interest, etc.

[dugsbody]

1 hour ago, PopGun said:

Comedy gold. 

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/deficit.asp

here let me make it simple for you so you can untwist your knickers.

Definitely not a Tory voter but the deficit has reduced. What is your point? 

[spyguy]

4 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

Definitely not a Tory voter but the deficit has reduced. What is your point? 

that it started in the US.

That the Tories would have bailed out the banks too.

Tories have increased the national debt more than any Labour government.

etc.

Ideally any incoming govement should have the option to zero any deficit.

The increase in the national debt over the last 10 years is purely down to Labours spending commitments.

Gidiots late and badly thought thru reforms to tax credit - wasting time + money on Universal credit run by that moron IBS, followed by a badly planned 'clever' procedure to address cost of tax credits.

When the coalition came in they should have slashed tax credits spend - raise the hours, cut the max top up to 400 for  family.

Shut down all benefit payouts to non nationals. This would have stopped Brexit vote from occuring.

But, really, if you had a time machine, you ought to have used to go back 50 odd years and put birth control pills in Browns and Blairs parent's food.

 

[Dorkins]

21 hours ago, Greg Bowman said:

+1 I completed a 4 year apprenticship for Lucas in a factory gasp for those militant momentum middle class PPE goons !!

The labour movement has for thirty years been nothing do with promoting the rights of the workers, it is full of middle class goons no different from the tories

Which people running Momentum did Oxford PPE?

You want Oxford PPE check out the current Cabinet e.g. Spreadsheet Phil, Jeremy Hunt. 

[BorrowToLeech]

1 hour ago, spyguy said:

The CIty of London deals with wholesale finance - trading, debt, equity.

The UK's problems in 2007 were all donw purely to plain vanilla banks lending too much on plain vanilla real estate.

Securtitisaion and the like played a very small part.

Dont make the CIty out to be at the cause of this. It has its fault but this was dumb mortgage banks lending too much to people to buy houses.

 

The question was specifically about the wider Global Financial Crisis.

On the other hand, you couldn't have had reckless lending by retail banks without reckless lending to retail banks, so these things are not unrelated.

 

[DarkHorseWaits-NoMore]

4 hours ago, spyguy said:

The increase in the national debt over the last 10 years is purely down to Labours spending commitments.

 

Not convinced. The NuLabor (old Tory) continuation is about less than 10% accountable, the rest was due to the total failure of the western capitalist model, causing the bottom to fall out of an economy that is over reliant on ponzy (financial) services sector activity (where backbone manufacturing has been systematically jettisoned since the 80s). That same so called trail blazers of free market philosophy (where free = serving Vested Interests), propagating the myths of trickle down economics, that then blackmailed the state for unprecedented state support that we are all still paying (just the interest on) the bill, primerily sholdered by the poorest in society with decades of lost progress and opertunity. The problems were and still are systemic, nothing has been resolved,we still have emergency interest rate policy, QE, ...

The overall spending commitments have not been over extravagant, to the point where True Labour is making a come back with policies that aim to delivery a basic standard of living that the UK took for granted 20+ years ago. Free education, a job, a house, a pension, a progressive tax system, a welfare state and functioning affordable public services etc.

 

 

 

Edited July 29, 2017 by DarkHorseWaits-NoMore

[adarmo]

2 hours ago, PopGun said:

Comedy gold. 

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/deficit.asp

here let me make it simple for you so you can untwist your knickers.

 

 

What's your put exactly? The deficit has fallen. Any deficit will add to the debt. A large deficit was inherited but has sharply been reduced. 

Do you understand yet?

Are you a Labour supporter? 

Is maths tricky?

[adarmo]

2 hours ago, PopGun said:

Really I mean really?

who mixed up the AAAs with the sub prime debt assets again? Pretty sure it wasn't the Halifax guy with penfold glasses.

it was the demand for debt assets that led to the crazy lending. High street backs where just the front end GUI, outputting the strategy written behind them.

 I agree with your sentiment here. 

The liar loans and 125% mortgages were only one side of the coin. It was the collatorisation of these mortgages into CDOs that enabled a constant source of funding to the banks. These were those risk free 10% yielding investments ?

Really it was a catalogue of regulatory, ratings agency and investor behaviour.

[hi5lo5]

15 minutes ago, adarmo said:

 I agree with your sentiment here. 

The liar loans and 125% mortgages were only one side of the coin. It was the collatorisation of these mortgages into CDOs that enabled a constant source of funding to the banks. These were those risk free 10% yielding investments ?

Really it was a catalogue of regulatory, ratings agency and investor behaviour.

The ABS investor report is open. I follow a bunch of them in particular Nationwide and Leeds building society. A traunch of ABS called "Guildford No1" from Leeds consists of over 85% buy to let loan contracts and the deliquency rates are stable. It would be interesting to see if they go up in the next few months. Also we would be absolutely sure about the BTLers selling if the number of contracts are declining due to early repayments.

[spyguy]

18 minutes ago, adarmo said:

 I agree with your sentiment here. 

The liar loans and 125% mortgages were only one side of the coin. It was the collatorisation of these mortgages into CDOs that enabled a constant source of funding to the banks. These were those risk free 10% yielding investments ?

Really it was a catalogue of regulatory, ratings agency and investor behaviour.

No. UK did not have a securitised mortgage market.

There was some but 90% of the UKs problem was lending too money to people to buy houses.

NR problems were down to wholesale funding borrowing.

BandB was down to BTL and tenants defaulting on rents.

It was leverage blowing up.

If BS which is what they are,  had stuck low ltv, with reasonable deposits the uk would have been uk.

[spyguy]

54 minutes ago, DarkHorseWaits-NoMore said:

Not convinced. The NuLabor (old Tory) continuation is about less than 10% accountable, the rest was due to the total failure of the western capitalist model, causing the bottom to fall out of an economy that is over reliant on ponzy service sector activity (where backbone manufacturing has been systematically jettisoned since the 80s). That same so called trail blazers of free market philosophy (where free = serving Vested Interests), propagating the myths of trickle down economics, that then blackmailed the state for unprecedented state support that we are all still paying (just the interest on) the bill, primerily sholdered by the poorest in society with decades of lost progress and opertunity. The problems were and still are systemic, nothing has been resolved,we still have emergency interest rate policy, QE, ...

The overall spending commitments have not been over extravagant, to the point where True Labour is making a come back with policies that aim to delivery a basic standard of living that the UK took for granted 20+ years ago. Free education, a job, a house, a pension, a progressive tax system, a welfare state and functioning affordable public services etc.

 

 

 

No. Itwas people borrowing too much to buy houses.

Youre confusing a lot of terms in your post.

Define service sector. The bits that caused most problems were internal to the UK.

UK finance was way too big for the economy. Less Ponzi more zero sum. Its shrunk a lot and will cintinue shrinking, both as tech rips a ehole and leverage is reduced as captial req is cranked up.

The uk needs a free market. There should be no orotectuion. Banks should have been shut, peiple should have been sacked. UK didnt bail out non finance uk companies in other recessions, banks should have gone to the wall - no pensions, no redundo.

[crashmonitor]

1 hour ago, DarkHorseWaits-NoMore said:

Not convinced. The NuLabor (old Tory) continuation is about less than 10% accountable, the rest was due to the total failure of the western capitalist model, causing the bottom to fall out of an economy that is over reliant on ponzy service sector activity (where backbone manufacturing has been systematically jettisoned since the 80s). That same so called trail blazers of free market philosophy (where free = serving Vested Interests), propagating the myths of trickle down economics, that then blackmailed the state for unprecedented state support that we are all still paying (just the interest on) the bill, primerily sholdered by the poorest in society with decades of lost progress and opertunity. The problems were and still are systemic, nothing has been resolved,we still have emergency interest rate policy, QE, ...

The overall spending commitments have not been over extravagant, to the point where True Labour is making a come back with policies that aim to delivery a basic standard of living that the UK took for granted 20+ years ago. Free education, a job, a house, a pension, a progressive tax system, a welfare state and functioning affordable public services etc.

 

 

 

Twenty years ago we didn't have to fund further education for everybody, have a replacement immigrant workforce of millions  (which is apparently very expensive to house) and also a larger ageing population on triple locks and high disability claims. Can't see an easy solution whoever is in Government now.

Edited July 29, 2017 by crashmonitor

[Option5]

2 minutes ago, spyguy said:

No. Itwas people borrowing too much to buy houses.

Youre confusing a lot of terms in your post.

Define service sector. The bits that caused most problems were internal to the UK.

UK finance was way too big for the economy. Less Ponzi more zero sum. Its shrunk a lot and will cintinue shrinking, both as tech rips a ehole and leverage is reduced as captial req is cranked up.

The uk needs a free market. There should be no orotectuion. Banks should have been shut, peiple should have been sacked. UK didnt bail out non finance uk companies in other recessions, banks should have gone to the wall - no pensions, no redundo.

Unfortunately a majority of people who work for banks in this country are just normal wage slaves and as much as I detest banks I don't hate all bank employees, just the to$$ers at the top.

[spyguy]

1 minute ago, crashmonitor said:

Twenty years ago we didn't have to fund further education for everybody, have a replacement immigrant workforce of millions  (which is apparently very expensive to house) and also an ageing population on triple locks and high disability claims. Can't see an easy solution whoever is in Government now.

Oh i can. Cut government spending.

[PopGun]

2 hours ago, dugsbody said:

Definitely not a Tory voter but the deficit has reduced. What is your point? 

That they've borrowed Sh1t loads of money to fund their ideology.

 

[PopGun]

40 minutes ago, adarmo said:

What's your put exactly? The deficit has fallen. Any deficit will add to the debt. A large deficit was inherited but has sharply been reduced. 

Do you understand yet?

Are you a Labour supporter? 

Is maths tricky?

Against this small deficit reduction (missing their own targets), how much have the Tories borrowed since 2010 against Zanulabour 97-2010?  

not a labour supporter and my maths is fine thanks.

[spyguy]

8 minutes ago, Option5 said:

Unfortunately a majority of people who work for banks in this country are just normal wage slaves and as much as I detest banks I don't hate all bank employees, just the to$$ers at the top.

Tough really.

Uk finance sector needs resizing.

Instead of managing their business, finance got into lunacylike io btl lending and scams like ppi.

The tech changes and eventual resizing of uk finance is noticable, both at the top and bottom.

The small near where i work has lost 4 banks, about 50 employees. The number of traders and high end jobs lost to both tech and capital requirements. Tough really. You want to earn commission then work for it.

[spyguy]

2 minutes ago, PopGun said:

Against this small deficit reduction (missing their own targets), how much have the Tories borrowed since 2010 against Zanulabour 97-2010?  

not a labour supporter and my maths is fine thanks.

The problems with uk post 2007 was not so much the deficit, but where the spending is going.

Rather concentrate on cutting the deficit, the coal then cons should have concentrated on what the ukgov was spending it on.

Again, stop lucrative working age benefits, no benefits to non nationals, no pointless capital spen hsl2 - more due to time spent on it rather than the money spent.

Part of the problem is that Brown spent so much 2001-2007. A lot of that spending was deferred too - ppi, pension shortfalls.

 

[Option5]

8 minutes ago, spyguy said:

Tough really.

Uk finance sector needs resizing.

Instead of managing their business, finance got into lunacylike io btl lending and scams like ppi.

The tech changes and eventual resizing of uk finance is noticable, both at the top and bottom.

The small near where i work has lost 4 banks, about 50 employees. The number of traders and high end jobs lost to both tech and capital requirements. Tough really. You want to earn commission then work for it.

Good point, I just don't like innocent people being put out of work. Bank closures are due to decisions of the guilty, but only the innocent (i include customers in this group) pay the price.

[Habitationi Bulla]

10 hours ago, adarmo said:

 

I literally can't believe people have such sort term memories. 

Says man who believes the current bubble is not the Tory partys fault.

We all know what Labour done, some of us are old enough to have been priced out by it, but one thing Labour did not do was use taxpayers money to create a bubble ... only to bail it out.

[DarkHorseWaits-NoMore]

2 hours ago, spyguy said:

Define service sector. The bits that caused most problems were internal to the UK.

yes, I missed a word (financial) services sector, post edited.

[Habitationi Bulla]

10 hours ago, adarmo said:

Zero. You?

Ive been reading your posts for a few weeks and to be honest i've never read such a prolific writer who thinks the status quo in prices is pretty much here to stay and at best we can hope for is a 10% drop i.e. early 2016 prices which were absolutely outrageous. 

Which is why i asked.

 

[adarmo]

2 hours ago, PopGun said:

Against this small deficit reduction (missing their own targets), how much have the Tories borrowed since 2010 against Zanulabour 97-2010?  

not a labour supporter and my maths is fine thanks.

If you think a reduction in the deficit of nearly 75% from 2010 to 217 is small then what do you consider to be successful? 

In 2010 the deficit was 9.9% of GDP, in 2016 it was 2.6%. Wrestling that back under control is what should be considered, not the area under that curve (borrowing, but you know that right?).

Out of interest why are you so focused on the total amount borrowed? What do you think could have been done better? Do you think HTB (which set all this chain off) contributed to it?

[spyguy]

2 minutes ago, adarmo said:

If you think a reduction in the deficit of nearly 75% from 2010 to 217 is small then what do you consider to be successful? 

In 2010 the deficit was 9.9% of GDP, in 2016 it was 2.6%. Wrestling that back under control is what should be considered, not the area under that curve (borrowing, but you know that right?).

Out of interest why are you so focused on the total amount borrowed? What do you think could have been done better? Do you think HTB (which set all this chain off) contributed to it?

Figures on the deficit varies a bit. It was somewhere between almost 10% to 12% in 2010.

Even at 9.9% thats fcking shocking. Its the sort of number youd expect if a country was at war or had an atomic bomb droped on it,

I dont think any previous govermet had managed cut 6% of a deficit in a relative short period.

In yhe olden days, a deficit of 5% was considered a major fckup.  Brown certainky exceeded expectation. Even more considering he followed the Cins spending from 97 to 20p01 and was running a surplus.

Of course, it was not so much being prudent. And all to do with going for a massive voteforme or workforme leader forever.

In 5 years from 2001 we went from being German to being Greek. And the larger part of Browns fjnancual inckbtinence has yet to land.