If anyone's interested - absolute carnage on stock exchanges today.

[larus]

look no further than maggie thatcher

Oh dear. Someone hasn't got a clue have they. Maggie was kicked out of power in 1992 - dip-sh*t. 16 f***ing years ago.

Blame Gordon *Prudence* Brown for stoking a housing bubble - got it- understand.

No, I doubt if you do, or if you have the capability of understanding what's going on.

 

[Amsterdam Albion]

I wondered how long it would take someone to blame Maggie!

The whole thing seems incredible, too many greedy people! Sure I want to be well off but I spend within my means. I am fortunate to earn a reasonable salary but live in a far smaller house then most my friend. Mainly because I felt the prices were crazy and I was being offered too much money towards a mortgage.

 

[Trufflehound]

Oh dear. Someone hasn't got a clue have they. Maggie was kicked out of power in 1992...

 

[DIFFBROOK]

If the problem is banks not lending money etc and businesses going tits up because of it, why not nationalise the banks, or at least become major shareholders. Then the Govt controls the credit supply?

Quite clearly markey forces are not working, so massive state intervention needs to be the answer. If the Govt buys bank shares now when they are low, then when the crisis is finally over (whenever that is) Govt can wait until bank share prices are higher and then sell. Any profit can then be ploughed into our pensions blackhole.

Just a thought.

 

[larus]

Oops. I mean 1990. Yes, Major won the election in 1992.

Makes my point even more valid then; nearly 20 years ago and still Maggies fault.

 

[larus]

If the problem is banks not lending money etc and businesses going tits up because of it, why not nationalise the banks, or at least become major shareholders. Then the Govt controls the credit supply?

Quite clearly markey forces are not working, so massive state intervention needs to be the answer. If the Govt buys bank shares now when they are low, then when the crisis is finally over (whenever that is) Govt can wait until bank share prices are higher and then sell. Any profit can then be ploughed into our pensions blackhole.

Just a thought.

In reality, the governments ability to influence these events is fairly limited.

I read in the Times yesterday that the value of outstanding mortgages in the US was $11,000bln. The US government has put in $700bln, i.e. about 6%. This doesn't cover business loans, credit card, etc, etc.

 

[vegster]

Given that Maggie's radiant daughter Carol has admitted that mum has Alzhiemers, could it be fair to wonder at what time the very first cerebal changes occured ? could it be about the time when she started flogging off the family silver ?.... i.e. BT, British Gas, British rail etc.....

I think that that can be seen as the start of the decline.... ergo, it's Maggies fault and she can take the Ernest Saunders defence

 

[DIFFBROOK]

In reality, the governments ability to influence these events is fairly limited.

I read in the Times yesterday that the value of outstanding mortgages in the US was $11,000bln. The US government has put in $700bln, i.e. about 6%. This doesn't cover business loans, credit card, etc, etc.

Very big figures and quite scary. But hopefully not all US mortgages, credit cards etc are gonna be defaulted upon, otherwise capiltalism really is dead. I assumed that the $700bn was just to cover those toxic loans that have already been defaulted or near to.

Anyhow, my point was, that Govt really needs to intervene now. It might not instantly solve the crisis, but doing nothing will make it a whole lot worse.

I was reading about the 1929 crash and the comparisons with todays. A few similar tales to be told i.e then Govts making the error of controlling inflation, when deflation was around the corner so making the situation worse. Also then a lack of state intervention, which hopefully wont happen this time around.

 

[beorhthelm]

If the problem is banks not lending money etc and businesses going tits up because of it, why not ... become major shareholders. Then the Govt controls the credit supply?
...then when the crisis is finally over (whenever that is) Govt can wait until bank share prices are higher and then sell. Any profit can then be ploughed into our pensions blackhole.

its so bloody obvious isnt and a better, more balanced approach than simply nationalising the banks. i think a major objection in the US to their "bail out" was that there was no payback, the banks ride off into the sunset with $700billion. Im all for free markets but it makes sence that if the government is going to back banks and the BOE is the lender of last resort, it makes sence that they should be shareholders in all banks.

we should however be wary of government intervention as it has a tendency to look impressive with less thought given to side effects. i have also read an interesting point that due to the ban on shorting in banks, institutional investors now have to actually sell bank shares when the value drops rather than being able to short them to hedge their position. the ban should have been on naked shorting (where you dont own the stock) and not limited to banks, seems the mining sector was a target for shorting yesturday.

 

[beardy gull]

It's all happening! RBS f*cked. Russia have 'bought' Iceland (the country not the supermarket)

 

[Silent Bob]

Oops. I mean 1990. Yes, Major won the election in 1992.

Makes my point even more valid then; nearly 20 years ago and still Maggies fault.

Is it impossible that things are leader does can have a lasting impact on their society?

 

[Questions]

I`ve known for many years that this problem with the banks would occur sooner or later with people who have substantial deposits worrying themselves to death over whether they may lose their life savings through no fault of their own.

Makes my decisions to squander most of my income of the last 25 years on drink, drugs and following the Albion even the more prudent now.

 

[beorhthelm]

Is it impossible that things are leader does can have a lasting impact on their society?

thats reasonable up to a point. however there is a blame culture throughout our society, and New Labour has led on this for 11 years blaming the previous government for anything bad. its time to take responsibility, Labour could have changed things but they didnt.

 

[aftershavedave]

all this talk of "blaming" labour or maggie thatcher is way wide of the mark.

this is a global credit crisis and the actions of gordon brown, blair or thatcher have little relevance to be frank.

the global markets are too large and complex for one country to have a major impact (apart from the US of course)

 

[Lush]

This has been a week of serious penny-dropping. This may be a simplified view, but is it the case that:

a) my ISA savings (as plugged heavily by the government) have been directly or indirectly lent out to people who have spent it/pissed it up the wall and won't be paying it back. I could therefore lose a good chunk of it?

b) I'd have been better off using the money to help pay off the mortgage. While the value of our house may be falling, it's still bricks and mortar which is nice to live in and would be nice to own outright. If times are going to be tough it would also be good to reduce our monthly outgoings.

Does this make sense?

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

afters - if the old building societies had remained mutual - wouldn't that have kept Northern Rock, Bradford and Bingley and the Halifax out of the crisis ?

I have not heard of problems at the Nationwide - or are they next ?

 

[larus]

all this talk of "blaming" labour or maggie thatcher is way wide of the mark.

this is a global credit crisis and the actions of gordon brown, blair or thatcher have little relevance to be frank.

the global markets are too large and complex for one country to have a major impact (apart from the US of course)

Sorry. The banks are regulated. The problems that Sweden had in the nineties and that Iceland are having now can be traced back to deregulation.

Global markets are complex, but funding rules have been too lax.

 

[larus]

This has been a week of serious penny-dropping. This may be a simplified view, but is it the case that:

a) my ISA savings (as plugged heavily by the government) have been directly or indirectly lent out to people who have spent it/pissed it up the wall and won't be paying it back. I could therefore lose a good chunk of it?

b) I'd have been better off using the money to help pay off the mortgage. While the value of our house may be falling, it's still bricks and mortar which is nice to live in and would be nice to own outright. If times are going to be tough it would also be good to reduce our monthly outgoings.

Does this make sense?

Perfect sense to me.

I have been very, very lucky with work over the last 15 years or so. I divorced about 4 years ago and left with not much, even though we had a nice lump of capital. I bought a house, and have now paid off my mortgage. I don't begrudge my ex the money, as she has the children and we get on very well - just not suited though for a marriage.

OK, I know that I have earnt very good money, but I took the view to get myself as financially secure as I could do before I then looked at investments or spending a lot on enjoying myself.

I'm not trying to be smug, but I took the view of security first. Once that it achieved, I feel then is the time to invest / spend.

I don't buy this view that you need to have expensive holidays, designer labels, eat out all the time to have a good life. My outgoings are modest, but I enjoy my life very much.

 

[adrian29uk]

So due to greed we are all going to suffer. Due to bad decisions, the honest hard working everyday person in the street is the one that suffer. Do you think the greedy pigs that caused this will suffer?

Like hell, these are people that have probably walked out with hundreds of thousands of pounds in bonuses. When are they going to me accountable? They never will.

 

[DIFFBROOK]

Lush As for ISAs, it depends on what type of ISA you have. If its the basic one, that is more like a savings account (limit of £3500) then what is happening in the stock market has no bearing. If you have the stock market version (and I think the limit is £7k), then yes the value of that will go down.


Larus, sensible you. Just wish society, banks etc didn't share your ideals. Our family hasn't taken out massive loans to pay for things. I know it might seem old fashioned but we tend to put aside money for rainy days i.e for a newer car, a new TV etc, rather than get a loan out. Thats why apart from a mortgage (8 years remaining) we are debt free and thank God we are.