o/t food for thought 10 years on

[KerrAvon]

The borrowers were the victims and the rest of the economic world too .

That's basically cobblers. I'm not totally sure what you mean by 'subprime products' and, more importantly, I'm not sure that you do either.

If you mean self certified mortgages when you say 'subprime products' then I tend to agree that they were an invitation to default, but to suggest that borrowers carry no responsibilty is just silly. It's like saying that a heavily convicted motorist who fails to declare his multiple convictions for dangerous driving and drink driving bears no responsibilty when an insurance company agrees to insure him.

If you are saying that mortgage brokers didn't care very much about who theye were arranging mortgages for then I would agree with you. They weren't making people take out mortgages, however.

As for companies like Lehman Brothers, they were trading mortgage backed securities without any understanding of the risk involved, becasue they were not analysisng those securities to the level of individual mortgages.

[millmoormagic]

That's basically cobblers. I'm not totally sure what you mean by 'subprime products' and, more importantly, I'm not sure that you do either.

If you mean self certified mortgages when you say 'subprime products' then I tend to agree that they were an invitation to default, but to suggest that borrowers carry no responsibilty is just silly. It's like saying that a heavily convicted motorist who fails to declare his multiple convictions for dangerous driving and drink driving bears no responsibilty when an insurance company agrees to insure him.

If you are saying that mortgage brokers didn't care very much about who theye were arranging mortgages for then I would agree with you. They weren't making people take out mortgages, however.

As for companies like Lehman Brothers, they were trading mortgage backed securities without any understanding of the risk involved, becasue they were not analysisng those securities to the level of individual mortgages.

The thing you're continually doing though is deflecting the blame (much of it anyway) onto the borrower....a bit pathetic to be honest, the truth is that the system basically gambled on the insecurities of those who most likely didn't really understand fully that system. I got my first mortgage at 21 and didn't really understand that endowment process, all i cared about was the ability to pay the debt, of course the banker assured me my package would pay the mortgage AND leave me money to spare...of course they've paid me out in compensation since...and that's my point, folk wanting to get on, and taking a considerable risk of course, but you have to accept that people actually take advice from 'experts'......back then the bankers were the 'experts'.....

[KerrAvon]

I'll tell you what is inconvenient, right wingers continually offering their support to the worst, the worst gov't in my lifetime, using Corbyn as a pathetic excuse. As Sawmiller says, the labour party's policies are far from radical, plain common sense for many, though it depends of course how you wanna look at it, either accept the status quo, you know, shyte rail service, shyte utility service, people really struggling to get by, millions of them, food banks and homelessness the only growth industry, great tax benefits for the rich though and of course, you're alright, jack...or really want to help the country out...

Plain common sense? I want the NHS to be properly funded, but the last Labour manifesto offered the prospect of paying out around £11bn per year to buy middle class votes with the tuition fee bribe whilst only offering £6bn per year for the NHS and social care. How is that common sense? It also proposed spending billions undertaking ideologically driven nationalisation programmes. About as common nonsensical as it comes. And, of course, they were proposing a job destroying hike in corporate taxes.

I know that you, raging and the like develop a selective blindness when Venezuela is mentioned, but you really should take the goggles off for a second and take a look at what happened there. It’s a country that Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott were talking about as a role model until Socialism worked its magic and destroyed the economy.

[KerrAvon]

The thing you're continually doing though is deflecting the blame (much of it anyway) onto the borrower....a bit pathetic to be honest, the truth is that the system basically gambled on the insecurities of those who most likely didn't really understand fully that system. I got my first mortgage at 21 and didn't really understand that endowment process, all i cared about was the ability to pay the debt, of course the banker assured me my package would pay the mortgage AND leave me money to spare...of course they've paid me out in compensation since...and that's my point, folk wanting to get on, and taking a considerable risk of course, but you have to accept that people actually take advice from 'experts'......back then the bankers were the 'experts'.....

I'm not continually deflecting the blame onto any one group. That is what you and animal are doing when you want it to all be the fault of the bankers (or, more accurately, the mortgage brokers).

You cared about the ability to pay your first mortgage. That's my point exactly. That's what borrowers should do.

[animallittle3]

That's basically cobblers. I'm not totally sure what you mean by 'subprime products' and, more importantly, I'm not sure that you do either.

If you mean self certified mortgages when you say 'subprime products' then I tend to agree that they were an invitation to default, but to suggest that borrowers carry no responsibilty is just silly. It's like saying that a heavily convicted motorist who fails to declare his multiple convictions for dangerous driving and drink driving bears no responsibilty when an insurance company agrees to insure him.

If you are saying that mortgage brokers didn't care very much about who theye were arranging mortgages for then I would agree with you. They weren't making people take out mortgages, however.

As for companies like Lehman Brothers, they were trading mortgage backed securities without any understanding of the risk involved, becasue they were not analysisng those securities to the level of individual mortgages.

How can you blame the borrower at any level of personal responsibility when criminal activities played such a prominent part ?.

[KerrAvon]

How can you blame the borrower at any level of personal responsibility when criminal activities played such a prominent part ?.

What criminal activity do you have in mind? I did ask that question earlier and am still waiting for information about the real source of the post that you gave in response.

As MMM points out, the first thought of people taking out a mortgage should be whether they can repay it. That is not a matter of expert advice it's about judging one's household budget and making a rational assessment.

[animallittle3]

What criminal activity do you have in mind? I did ask that question earlier and am still waiting for information about the real source of the post that you gave in response.

As MMM points out, the first thought of people taking out a mortgage should be whether they can repay it. That is not a matter of expert advice it's about judging one's household budget and making a rational assessment.

US law as I pointed out in an earlier post clearly puts the responsibility on to the mortgage provider and not the individual lender .

The law is there to protect them , it's pretty black and white to me .

[millmoormagic]

Plain common sense? I want the NHS to be properly funded, but the last Labour manifesto offered the prospect of paying out around £11bn per year to buy middle class votes with the tuition fee bribe whilst only offering £6bn per year for the NHS and social care. How is that common sense? It also proposed spending billions undertaking ideologically driven nationalisation programmes. About as common nonsensical as it comes. And, of course, they were proposing a job destroying hike in corporate taxes.

I know that you, raging and the like develop a selective blindness when Venezuela is mentioned, but you really should take the goggles off for a second and take a look at what happened there. It’s a country that Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott were talking about as a role model until Socialism worked its magic and destroyed the economy.

My goggles are quite clearly working fine, they allow me to see straight through the tory party and it's supporters, to see exactly what they're doing to the NHS that you claim to support, why arent you railing against the creeping privatisation of the NHS? the same privatisation that's ruined the rail industry and utilities, ran for profit over people. My goggles allow me to see straight through your lawyer waffle and deflection.

[KerrAvon]

US law as I pointed out in an earlier post clearly puts the responsibility on to the mortgage provider and not the individual lender .

The law is there to protect them , it's pretty black and white to me .

Well I'm not expert on US law and I don't suppose that you are either and so neither of us are in a position to say what is black and what is white. I'm curious to see if the source of your earlier post is an expert. Where did you get it from?

[millmoormagic]

I'm not continually deflecting the blame onto any one group. That is what you and animal are doing when you want it to all be the fault of the bankers (or, more accurately, the mortgage brokers).

You cared about the ability to pay your first mortgage. That's my point exactly. That's what borrowers should do.

And still got skanked by the banker promising me the endowment policy would pay the mortgage, and more, and that is the main point, the only relevant point, they were mis-sold by the million and you're blaming the borrower, well done fella.