Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
BoomBoom

Vince Cable= Clueless Cretin

Recommended Posts

And of course, we should all vote Tory because they failed to make a decision on the matter one way or the other, thus saving themselves from any political damage. ;)

A bank failure would have been just as ugly... I don't think there are any seriously brilliant solutions to the collapse of our financial system, all we can focus on is damage limitation. As ugly as it is, nationalisation is a way of spreading the blow.

The mistake lies in the manner in which it was done, sucking off the shareholders and giving out massive golden handshakes to the former board for their incompetance.

The government can only afford to do this kind of thing once, and they missed their chance to make it an unattractive option for other banks in trouble.

Edited by DementedTuna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I rather like him, mostly because he seems to be happy to be at least vaguely honest. He seems preferable to Osbourne, who seems absolutely determined to look like a valueless stuffed shirt with an arts degree* and influential Mater and Pater. Then again, I'd rather have a genuine toffee-nosed twit trying to not spend my money then an ex-Shell bigis-wig trying to spend it. I'd mention Darling, but I can't take the risk of shitting myself laughing again - pants mean prizes, but only when they're clean.

When it comes down to it, I'll just end up voting Tory anyway, as they're the ones with the least zeal for regulating and taxing, and my primary criterion for judging a decent government is "does it bugger off and let me, and the business I work for, get on with it".

* Sorry, but they're Club 18-30, whether it's Oxbridge or the local ex-Poly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The mistake lies in the manner in which it was done, sucking off the shareholders...

I wish I'd got in at 90p now. You have to pay a fiver for that sort of thing round here. Probably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You need better anagram software. A better one would be "Cancel Vibe" :P

I see your "Cancel Vibe", and raise you "NBC evil? Ace!", with the Tories offering up "Nob ego? Roger Sue!".

Ooh, shouldn't have started this one...

Gordon Brown.... "Born Wrong-do"

David Cameron... (rather worryingly) "I'd rod caveman", or even "Comrade Divan".. and "Vicar on me dad!", "Cram and video", "Mad Ravine Cod", or even "I'd ram van coed". For God's sake, don't Google them...

Kirsty Allsop - "Skat, so I'll pry". Oh, so that's what yer into...

Hmm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.order-order.com/2008/08/vince-k...t-wrong-on.html

I think more than a few here were disappointed to see him advocate nationalisation as being the best way to deal with the problem.

Tonight, on BBC 24, he said something along the lines of, they bailed out Northern Rock, something that some people didn't agree with but once they did that, nationalisation was inevitable.

So how exactly is this Vince Calling it wrong on Northern Rock? What utter crap.

Once the Government along with the BOE bailed out Northern Rock, it was obvious they would have to bring it onto the government books and take it over. So he didn't call it wrong at all. There was no way anyone would have bought it and taken all the risks on board, that is the key point.

You can make the argument along with Vince that they shouldn't have bailed it out in the first place, but nationalising it afterwords was inevitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tonight, on BBC 24, he said something along the lines of, they bailed out Northern Rock, something that some people didn't agree with but once they did that, nationalisation was inevitable.

So how exactly is this Vince Calling it wrong on Northern Rock? What utter crap.

Once the Government along with the BOE bailed out Northern Rock, it was obvious they would have to bring it onto the government books and take it over. So he didn't call it wrong at all. There was no way anyone would have bought it and taken all the risks on board, that is the key point.

You can make the argument along with Vince that they shouldn't have bailed it out in the first place, but nationalising it afterwords was inevitable.

That's almost impossible to disagree with.

*thinks*

Actually, no, it is impossible to disagree with. Once they'd started digging, the only option was to keep at it.

Then again (not NR related), anyone who uses the words "Local Income Tax" without having their fingers crossed needs to be taken outside and spoken to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's almost impossible to disagree with.

*thinks*

Actually, no, it is impossible to disagree with. Once they'd started digging, the only option was to keep at it.

Then again (not NR related), anyone who uses the words "Local Income Tax" without having their fingers crossed needs to be taken outside and spoken to.

No one has all the answers but Vince has shown more financial intelligence and insight than than Darling, Brown, Cameron and Osborne put together over the last year.

A giant among pygmies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vince didn't state when he said nationalisation was a good thing that Northern Rocks loan book was good did he? I thought he said as it was all government money propping the thing up, they should bloody well manage it too. As for letting Applegarth 'trade the rock out of insolvency', that's just bad joke.

I think Vince is the one speaking the most sense, quite frankly Osbourne seems as clueless as Brown and Darling, maybe perhaps with a different agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So who can we trust? Capitalists? :lol::lol::lol:

Thanks for that... you've convinced me... Cable is God Tony Blair....

:lol: :lol: :lol: :angry:

Capitalists? No... not even them...

Capitalism does work and indeed selective charity ( ahem... basic socialism) has it's place. It is numpties like Cable who advocate some sort of bailout that are the problem. All capitalism needs is a full blown libertarian ethos. This Keynesian tinkering and Greenspan sheep shagging are enemies of pure capitalism. If we want an efficient allocation of resources and a society at maximum productivity we must not only have an effective incentive system... but also a dis-incentive system. Post Dot.com the CB's should have let the economy work through it's excesses. Instead.. we had regulation, bailouts and intervention from boobs like Cable. Through their arrogance they thought they could soften the damage to the average human being by supporting those that were responsible for the original damage. They negated any dis-incentive effect with their bleeding heart liberal ways... Well... you are currently seeing the result. What we need is for people to see real pain... Hardship is the only way to make them rise up and challenge those that seek to oppress them. Bah... Why even try to convince you... Off to the slaughterhouse you go....

Look... human beings are flawed... people are stupid and selfish. The sooner people realize this the better. The only way to maximize our collective wellbeing is to establish boundaries of right and wrong, good and evil, wise and unwise. A system that rewards behavior that enhances our collective wellbeing is the most efficient system to date. On the flip side a system that does not system that rewards bad behavior is the most in-efficient system to maximize our collective wellbeing. Now ask yourself... What system does nationalization, bailouts and a failure to punish promote?

Think about it...

And weep.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No one has all the answers but Vince has shown more financial intelligence and insight than than Darling, Brown, Cameron and Osborne put together over the last year.

A giant among pygmies.

I agree. His argument last autumn was for decisive action: his main point was that a limited bail-out was expensive and in any case destined to end in failure (eg collapse) or nationalisatio. So, effectively, the decision was to allow the full crash or nationalize. In this, he was surely right. What I find fishy in the above, seemingly ideologically motivated attacks, is that they ignore the fact that the Lib Dems did not negotiate the actual terms of the nationalization or have the same information as available to the Treasury at the time. So how on earth can you attack them for hypocrisy or poor financial acumen now? If the board, or senior financial staff, lied to the Treasury they should indeed be charged. That's all he's saying and only he is saying it. I sometimes think this site is a feeder mechanism for the Young Conservatives...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s a poor craftsman who blames his tools.

I do not think the conservative party is the final answer.... they just happen to have 75% of the way to go... Which leaves Labour at 85% and the Lib Dems at 95%.

Unfortunately the only cure for this 3rd world country called Great Britain is a full blown depression.. This is the only way for people to understand basic human nature as opposed to some Utopian "up your ****" idea of moral superiority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vince Cable is the ONLY person who I have ever seen talking any sense about the housing market on TV. Possible exeption of FP, but even he does not tell it the way VC does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So where does the actual clue lie?? Most on here think that the current administration are clueless. Surely if they did actually give a fig about our economy, a true leader would have said Right, forget the usual summer break - we've created a massive stinking mess and it's only right that we stick around and put in the extra effort to sort s* out. Heaven forbid though they sacrifice their freaking holidays to make the country a bit better. Or maybe it so happens the country does well enough without a government micro-managing it at all, in which case can't they just stay wherever they all went? :P

Editted to be politically incorrect.

Edited by jammo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's one of the more thoughtful comments from the blog:

To be absolutley fair to Vince he was a very coherent and critical voice in Parliament when the whole NR debacle was unfolding. He was not in full possession of the facts about the NR mortgage loan book - but Treasury/BoE/FSA should have been and should have sent independent auditors to intensely scrutinise the loan book before handing over a penny of tax payers money.

It would have been irresponsible of Vince to simply stand there in Parliament saying that NR loan book was not of 'high quality' when he had none of the facts. It would have destroyed any chance of rescuing the bank so he and the rest of Westminster had to accept what the Govt was saying about the quality of the loan book.

Nevertheless, for those of us who know the North East well and in particular how thin its economy really is then I think that it was obvious that the rapid expansion of NR at a far faster pace than the rest of the market with a loan book which was concentrated in one fairly weak economic region often at high loan to value ratios especially in 2006 - 2007 was a highly risky strategy. What we are now seeing is the outcome of that risk taking and the real 'quality' of the loan book is beginning to emerge.

To be sure the Govt always had to guarantee small savers and depositors cash up to the £35k limit but it did not need to do more than that before it was in full possession of the facts about the mortgage book.

In my view, the Govt should have put the bank into administration and let the loan book run off under close supervision from the BoE with bondholders and shareholders taking whatever was left over at the end.

Of course the calculation was a political one and not financial. The fear of a deep political impact in the North East was uppermost in everyones' mind - but as it happens the Noth East voters turned against the Govt in the subsequent local elections anyway so nothing was gained politically either.

The bolded bit was the crisis point IMO. Did they guarantee all deposits because there was a genuine risk of further bank runs and possibly systemic failure, or purely for the political objective of protecting their north-eastern voter base? We may never know for sure what would have happened if they'd let the >35k depositors burn, I guess, but it would have been exciting to find out ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tonight, on BBC 24, he said something along the lines of, they bailed out Northern Rock, something that some people didn't agree with but once they did that, nationalisation was inevitable.

So how exactly is this Vince Calling it wrong on Northern Rock? What utter crap.

Once the Government along with the BOE bailed out Northern Rock, it was obvious they would have to bring it onto the government books and take it over. So he didn't call it wrong at all. There was no way anyone would have bought it and taken all the risks on board, that is the key point.

You can make the argument along with Vince that they shouldn't have bailed it out in the first place, but nationalising it afterwords was inevitable.

I agree. I think that is what Vince said. He did not advocate bail out but once the decision had been made then he argued that the Govt should get on with it and do it in the cleanest most sensible way with the least risk to the tax payer. We need to remember that Vince and the rest of Westminster did not really know the full facts and were working in real time. With luxury of hindsight I am sure everyone including the Govt would agree that allowing NR to fail or be taken over and protecting small depositers would have been better.

Edited by Wad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest barebear

On LBC the other day I phoned in and voted for VC as the best alternative prime minister, my reasons were that he generally talks sense. The first thing the presenter said was because he can and it doesn't matter what he sais as the Libs will never be in power.

That got me thinking, all these politicians for Lab and Con are just saying what they're told to. Its all about money and big players and what is good for them. Until we change the way we vote this will always be the same.

If NR had of been viable Virgin or Lloyds would have snapped it up but obviously it wasn't.Therefore the only people that could keep it afloat was the guv.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.order-order.com/2008/08/vince-k...t-wrong-on.html

I think more than a few here were disappointed to see him advocate nationalisation as being the best way to deal with the problem.

I would have titled the thread Vince vs. Clueless Cretins.

I think Vince has a handle on a rather dreadful reality facing us all. Structural collapse as opposed the usual boom-bust cycle (that Gordon said he had abolished). There may be no other alternative than to nationalise core industries as the collapse may threaten our viability as a nation. We have seen nothing yet in terms of the devastation Gordon's credit buble is going to cause in the area of unemployment, bankruptcies, social service overload and so forth. I can see an emergency co-alition cabinet at some point not unlike that formed in the early years of WW2.

Vince was the lone voice of reason as the bubble was still in its formation stage and Gordon was boasting about 10 years of uninterrupted growth and the highest house prices in the world along with the lowest inflation blah blah....

Phase 2 of the crash is about to hit--unemployment. The secondary credit markets are about to topple and we could see a few more banks bite the dust in the coming weeks as they are doing at this moment in the US which is ahead of us in the great crash stakes. IMO the hitherto 18 month lag is closing and we will soon be in lockstep.

Edited by Realistbear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can't say that, this forum is virtually the Vince Cable Fan Club.

Still, seems this country is doomed to go on voting for the 3 parties who have so successfully driven it into the ground over the last 50 years..

I think most of us on this forum appreciate Vince Cable's ability to spot and ennuciate the problem, but I am not so sure we'd all agree with his proposed solutions. He was up for nationalisation from the off, and that is costing tax payers a fortune.

It seems to me that one party is the principal cause of our woes, its main phases of power in the 60's and 70's and the last 10 years have done immeasurable damage, not just economically, and the other is principally blamed for the harsh regime it has had to impose to clear the mess up. I hope we resort to voting for two parties and consign labour to the dustbin, since surely we must have learned that whilst they promise the earth, they are simply not to be trusted to run the economy.

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.

  • 399 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.