o/t food for thought 10 years on

[KerrAvon]

Continually deflecting to times gone past, so, if we're going on suppositions, what makes you think that a nationalised rail industry won't be better than the current set up? I've travelled on trains in a few European countries, Germany, France, Italy, all public owned, all punctual to the Nth degree, all a whole lot cheaper and pristine and modern, whatever you think, our rail services pale into insignificance when compared like for like.

M y thoughts on the tuition fees, are this, the policy is to stop tuition fees and i fully support it. I expect our generation should have the basic deceny and honesty to give the current generation the same benefits, after all, where would kerr avon be without my taxes going towards his higher education eh?

Deflecting to things gone past? Better than Labour seeking to return us to things gone past such as the 1970s with the nationalistion of the utilitities, Royal Mail and railways.

So you fully support the notion that Labour would spend twice as much on the tuition fee bribe as it would on additioanla funding for the NHS and social care. That is bizarre as far as I am concerned, but each to their own.

[millmoormagic]

Deflecting to things gone past? Better than Labour seeking to return us to things gone past such as the 1970s with the nationalistion of the utilitities, Royal Mail and railways.

So you fully support the notion that Labour would spend twice as much on the tuition fee bribe as it would on additioanla funding for the NHS and social care. That is bizarre as far as I am concerned, but each to their own.

There you go again, deflecting to the 70's, they've long gone fella, gary glitter aint coming back!!
Labour policy is to stop tuition fees, and fully fund the NHS....and social care...and sort the rail industry out....oh and the utilities....

[KerrAvon]

There you go again, deflecting to the 70's, they've long gone fella, gary glitter aint coming back!!
Labour policy is to stop tuition fees, and fully fund the NHS....and social care...and sort the rail industry out....oh and the utilities....

The 70s are gone. I'm just keen for that to remain the case.

If someone has told you that Labour intend to fully fund the NHS and social care, you are in danger of being mis-sold again. The Labour manifesto said otherwise.

[millmoormagic]

The 70s are gone. I'm just keen for that to remain the case.

If someone has told you that Labour intend to fully fund the NHS and social care, you are in danger of being mis-sold again. The Labour manifesto said otherwise.

Haha, the manifesto said much, much more than the tory one....thye'vebacktracked on just about every pledge, and even adopted old labour policy to boot!

[John2]

I'm not sure why the borrowers are being held accountable for the sub prime mortgage crisis.

Sub prime mortgages weren't the problem, we still have them and always will. The risk just has to be appropriately managed.

The problem was that banks were mixing sub prime mortgages with low risk mortgages and packaging them together as low risk financial products which were then being traded between banks.

I'm sure that the individuals who were buying these absoloute crap products didn't realise the real risk they presented.

However the people creating these junk products and marketing them as low risk knew exactly what they doing. That's fraud.

I also understand there must have been some complicity from the ratings agencies who labelled these junk products as having low risk.

Whatever executives got greedy and created these products with fake ratings should have been jailed.

However sub prime mortgages just happened to be the trigger for a fragile system that was vulnerable because of failings on all fronts, greed and a lack of regulation. These things in themselves aren't necessarily criminal.

There are other instances where bank employees have been guilty of criminal acts and faced zero criminal consequences, with banks just paying fines to get away from criminal proceedings.

The LIBOR scandal springs to mind (to be fair a handful of Barclays bankers got jailed, but many other banks involved just paid fines), as does the HSBC money laundering scandal.

Really good documentary on Netflix called Dirty Money for those interested. One of the episodes is on the HSBC scandal, its disgusting.

[monty_rhodes]

I'm not sure why the borrowers are being held accountable for the sub prime mortgage crisis.

Sub prime mortgages weren't the problem, we still have them and always will. The risk just has to be appropriately managed.

The problem was that banks were mixing sub prime mortgages with low risk mortgages and packaging them together as low risk financial products which were then being traded between banks.

I'm sure that the individuals who were buying these absoloute crap products didn't realise the real risk they presented.

However the people creating these junk products and marketing them as low risk knew exactly what they doing. That's fraud.

I also understand there must have been some complicity from the ratings agencies who labelled these junk products as having low risk.

Whatever executives got greedy and created these products with fake ratings should have been jailed.

However sub prime mortgages just happened to be the trigger for a fragile system that was vulnerable because of failings on all fronts, greed and a lack of regulation. These things in themselves aren't necessarily criminal.

There are other instances where bank employees have been guilty of criminal acts and faced zero criminal consequences, with banks just paying fines to get away from criminal proceedings.

The LIBOR scandal springs to mind (to be fair a handful of Barclays bankers got jailed, but many other banks involved just paid fines), as does the HSBC money laundering scandal.

Really good documentary on Netflix called Dirty Money for those interested. One of the episodes is on the HSBC scandal, its disgusting.

A very good and balanced contribution, john. I often admire Kerr's reasoning but his obsession with an absurd "No return to the seventies" and his unflinching support for the actions of "fat cats" has increasingly blurred his judgement in my view.

[Donald_Valley]

One of the funniest thread I’ve read for a long time.

People professing knowledge about one of the most complex financial collapses the world has ever experienced. Give it a break. You’re just googling and posting articles without any knowledge of their veracity and then using them to support your political leanings.

Armchair experts.

[monty_rhodes]

Just to add a couple of points. I confess to finding Kerr's attempt to shift the blame onto borrowers comparable to the Sun's approach to Hillsborough. It was rather sickening. Sickening too is to hear a Labour Chancellor recounting how he took a call from the Chairman of RBS and was able to "put his mind at ease" and tell him to enjoy his golf as the government would not let the bank go under. It seems indisputable to me that the living standards of ordinary people have suffered greatly as a result of the banking crisis and the ramifications for public spending will be with us for many years to come. Yet the vast majority of senior officials in the leading 20 or 30 banks and financial institutions are back earning vast bonuses; for them it's business as usual. And reading reports from sensible academics and listening to contributions from economists and politicians involved at the time there seems to me a consensus view that the bankers got off lightly and that in reality little has been done to prevent a repetition. Watch this space.

[gm_gm]

Don't think it will happen again, safeguards are now in place via capital adequacy requirements. The issue is now that banks can not lend what they want due to the constraints. They have only lent positive above receipts one quarter in the last 6 years, most of the borrowing comes from more expensive lending.


Sickly...socialism doesn't bail anybody out, its the opposite that socialism has to be bailed after its wreaked its havoc..history proves this

[gm_gm]

I'm not sure why the borrowers are being held accountable for the sub prime mortgage crisis.

Sub prime mortgages weren't the problem, we still have them and always will. The risk just has to be appropriately managed.

The problem was that banks were mixing sub prime mortgages with low risk mortgages and packaging them together as low risk financial products which were then being traded between banks.

I'm sure that the individuals who were buying these absoloute crap products didn't realise the real risk they presented.

However the people creating these junk products and marketing them as low risk knew exactly what they doing. That's fraud.

I also understand there must have been some complicity from the ratings agencies who labelled these junk products as having low risk.

Whatever executives got greedy and created these products with fake ratings should have been jailed.

However sub prime mortgages just happened to be the trigger for a fragile system that was vulnerable because of failings on all fronts, greed and a lack of regulation. These things in themselves aren't necessarily criminal.

There are other instances where bank employees have been guilty of criminal acts and faced zero criminal consequences, with banks just paying fines to get away from criminal proceedings.

The LIBOR scandal springs to mind (to be fair a handful of Barclays bankers got jailed, but many other banks involved just paid fines), as does the HSBC money laundering scandal.

Really good documentary on Netflix called Dirty Money for those interested. One of the episodes is on the HSBC scandal, its disgusting.

Partly right John but Sub-prime was a huge issue, I was smack bang in the middle of it at the time, it a nutshell £1 was being sold for £3 (like *******) due to gearing of "wrapped" financial products which was unsustainable. After purchasing for £1 for £3 you then have it re-valued at £1 at this point you realise that your balance sheet is completely shot and have to raise capital ...but guess what everyone else is in the same place so you go to the government.

The system isn't fragile anymore, to lend £1 the bank needs £2 on account due to capital adequacy requirements, gearing is gone and risk profiling much higher than it was