Who will/did you vote for on 6th May General Election

[Colin Todd]

I'm not blaming the whole economic crisis on Brown.  But regardless of the official unemployement figures, economic inactivity amongst people of a working age is at record levels. Talk talk posted a graph on here a while back illustrating this point.

[pauld]

I don't believe for a second without the benefit of hindsight the Conservatives would have had a completely different economic policy in regard to the banks.

At the time the crisis hit, Cameron and Osbourne floundered like a pair of trout in a keepnet, flip-flopping from one stance to another on an almost weekly basis. Fortunately, they weren't in power at the time and Gordon was able to take the strong decisive action required to at least ameloriate the crisis caused at root by the Thatcherite/Reagonomics free-market gone mad excesses of the 80s.

[Colin Todd]

"The Thatcherite/Reagonomics free-market gone mad excesses of the 80s" that Gordon allowed to happen on his watch, and in fact actively encouraged. Bravo!

But remember its all the tories fault really.

[pauld]

Thought I'd get a bite on that one. Thanks, CT, you rarely disappoint

[Colin Todd]

I thought that statement was bullshit even by your standards pal 

[mexico red]

it all goes back to thatchers door.

[Talk Talk]

Laissez faire economics is surely what got us into this mess, isn't it?

No, it wasn't actually. You can trace the source back to government interference and regulation in the finance business, particularly in America. Introducing free market unfriendly diktats and policies that ultimately produced the toxic debt and unserviceable loans that brought most of banking down.

Banks do not need 'economic policy'. They need freedom to operate as banks, it went well for a few hundred years before the state stuck it's fetid cock in and diseased it.

[Spy]

Banks do not need 'economic policy'. They need freedom to operate as banks, it went well for a few hundred years before the state stuck it's fetid cock in and diseased it.

But 100 or 200 years ago we didn't have the same consumerist society we had today.

You can't really compare our society with the one before the war or before industrialisation without recognising how much more disposable income most people have which leads to more products being available which leads to the temptation to loan money which can lead to some of the problems of the last year or so.


TT it is an unusual position to say that the recession has been caused by regulation of banks rather than lack of regulation - care to expand on your view?

[Talk Talk]

TT it is an unusual position to say that the recession has been caused by regulation of banks rather than lack of regulation - care to expand on your view?

It's not unusual at all. Sub prime lending in the US housing market started these global economic problems. This was instigated by the US government and was the initial cause of all of this. If the finance houses had been left alone to determine their own credit risks (as they had done for a long long time) it wouldn't have happened.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people... In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html

[pauld]

And of course the large amount of fraudulent understatement of the risk by several large US banks and many of the others no longer even understanding their own exposure played no part whatever. At the time of the bust, the top 10 US investment banks claimed to control assets nominally worth 20+ times the worth of the entire global economy. The finance houses were no longer capable of "determining their own credit risks (as they had done for a long time)". And governments must take their share of the blame for that failure, but for not regulating adequately

[Talk Talk]

And of course the large amount of fraudulent understatement of the risk by several large US banks and many of the others no longer even understanding their own exposure played no part whatever. At the time of the bust, the top 10 US investment banks claimed to control assets nominally worth 20+ times the worth of the entire global economy. The finance houses were no longer capable of "determining their own credit risks (as they had done for a long time)". And governments must take their share of the blame for that failure, but for not regulating adequately

Then that is an audit failure by the shareholders who have invested their capital in the businesses. It has got fuck all to do with regulation and neither should it.

[Phil_S]

Things that labour did that I thought showed their incompetence
First they appointed Frank Field to look at Pensions & funding. He is one of the few labour people with any sense. They then totally ignored his recommendations & Brown started the 5 billion a year pensions tax affecting all of our pensions (unless you work for the goverment of course)
Second he sells a bunch of the countrys gold at rock bottom prices. Incompetence of the first order.
Regulation of the banks should have been left with the Bank of England. If any one has dealings with the FSA you will now what a waste of time they are.
I could go on, & on, but the first two were enough for me

[STFC Bart]

And the fact Phil that the last 2 Labour governments have practically bankrupted the country.

[tans]

Hi Bart 

[Nemo]

And the fact Phil that the last 2 Labour governments have practically bankrupted the country.

Are you sure it wasn't Maurice Malpas?