21st Century hero
- Thread starter Softus
- Start date
Sponsored Links
the chancellor will no doubt go against Prescots policy and reduce the amount of new homes being built - thus helping current house prices to increase.
this in turn then gives the British public the false impression, it so desperately craves, that they have more money (due to a over inflated house valuation) then they could ever dream of having.
this country so desperately needs a reality check.
or am i seeing it wrong?
..or, do we all need to live in a fantasy world where our £300k, two bed semi, will provide re-mortgage value to help pay for the Chelsea tractor or foreign holiday that we all need.*
*if the neighbours over the road, that work at the same factory can afford it, then why can't we?
this in turn then gives the British public the false impression, it so desperately craves, that they have more money (due to a over inflated house valuation) then they could ever dream of having.
this country so desperately needs a reality check.
or am i seeing it wrong?
..or, do we all need to live in a fantasy world where our £300k, two bed semi, will provide re-mortgage value to help pay for the Chelsea tractor or foreign holiday that we all need.*
*if the neighbours over the road, that work at the same factory can afford it, then why can't we?
There must be different levels of reality 
I personally have not felt any problem with the present credit crunch, yes i paid more for diesel but it didnt leave me destitute and with the fuel going back down and mortgages rates dropping three times in the last month or two i'm far better off than in the 80's when i really struggled with the rate going up to 15% under the tories inept policies.
Personally I think Gordon Brown's government are doing a fine job in coping with what is in fact a global problem.
I personally have not felt any problem with the present credit crunch, yes i paid more for diesel but it didnt leave me destitute and with the fuel going back down and mortgages rates dropping three times in the last month or two i'm far better off than in the 80's when i really struggled with the rate going up to 15% under the tories inept policies.Personally I think Gordon Brown's government are doing a fine job in coping with what is in fact a global problem.
Sponsored Links
it is a pity tim that your own personal prosperity does not go far in the lives of all those who are losing out to the greed and ignorance of the banks and the gullible general public.
Credit where credit's due.
Vince Cable is
Vince Cable is
As i said there must be different viewpoints here, i'm by no means rich but i'm nowhere as poor as in the eighties with the unemployment and mortgage problems then.
I do feel sorry for those suffering at the moment, but wonder statistically the numbers suffering now as to how many suffered in the 80's?
I hope we aren't adding the two car families who are just moaning because their £300,000+ house has lost a few grand off its price into the equation.
I know I wish people wouldnt listen to what the papers say and actually see the good that Gordon is trying to do, its a shame, oh well as you say they are fools
Do you know what the governments house building targets actually are?
Do you know what the opposition policy is on this?
i have not got the foggiest.
i detest politics the same as i detest call centres and subsequent number options.
i also think that our current house prices are vastly over inflated and it is this over inflation that has led to a lot of people thinking that they are wealthier than they actually are.
couple this with the banks' eagerness to loan money to these deluded people and you end up with financial catastrophe.
Given that the purpose of a bank is to securely store money for savers and responsibly loan money to borrowers, why do you see the eagerness of a bank to loan money as an act worthy of criticism?
Its worthy of criticism when the current lending policy is primarily based on potential profits to be made, rather than maintaining the security of the money lent to the bank by the savers, which used to be the governing principle of banking.
If you lent me £10 (with a meagre daily interest rate payable to you) on a no-notice withdrawal of the loan, and I then subsequently lent that £10 to a bloke on the dole (with a higher rate of daily interest payable to me), who then failed to make the payments, you would rightly be critical of me. Its the same thing with the banks, except they are dealing with billions of "our" pounds, irresponsibly.
IMHO this came about due to the prolonged period from the mid-nineties to the middle of this decade when interest rates were held down to levels that stifled the banks' profits. So, to improve profits at the low interest rates, they simply lent money to a bigger, less secure client base, ie a bigger though riskier turnover, on the basis that they will get more actual growth. The money isn't theirs; it belongs to other organizations, so they treat it like a commodity, buying (borrowing) it low and selling (lending) it at a slightly higher price in a very competitive market place. Then the money supply stopped and all the borrowed money had been loaned out on long terms leaving them with nothing to trade with.
If you lent me £10 (with a meagre daily interest rate payable to you) on a no-notice withdrawal of the loan, and I then subsequently lent that £10 to a bloke on the dole (with a higher rate of daily interest payable to me), who then failed to make the payments, you would rightly be critical of me. Its the same thing with the banks, except they are dealing with billions of "our" pounds, irresponsibly.
IMHO this came about due to the prolonged period from the mid-nineties to the middle of this decade when interest rates were held down to levels that stifled the banks' profits. So, to improve profits at the low interest rates, they simply lent money to a bigger, less secure client base, ie a bigger though riskier turnover, on the basis that they will get more actual growth. The money isn't theirs; it belongs to other organizations, so they treat it like a commodity, buying (borrowing) it low and selling (lending) it at a slightly higher price in a very competitive market place. Then the money supply stopped and all the borrowed money had been loaned out on long terms leaving them with nothing to trade with.
When did it used to be so?
But you're not a bank, and no bank would do that.
Is it the fact that some banks invested overseas that bothers you?
Or is it the principle of fractional reserve banking?
I disagree. Bank profits come not from high interest rates, but from keeping the reserve ratio as low as possible and maximising the gearing on liabilities.
Again, no.
That's the definition of a bank. Would you prefer that we didn't have banks?
That's certainly true of Northern Rock, but a partial cause of that was a US bank run.
So far, your point seems to be that banks have behaved like banks would be expected to behave. They could have been more risk averse, but shareholders demanded high returns. The government could have raised the minimum reserve ratio, but didn't. The public in general could have been less greedy, but we weren't.
Where does the buck stop?
Sponsored Links
