World Financial System......done

[Tommy Wiseau]

That is a fair point. I do totally agree that a lot of individuals have been done over. However when putting money in a bank you are actually investing in it. I think the lack of financial education in this country is shocking. I learned nothing at School about any of this.

 

I had an account with Icesave myself but pulled it about 9 months ago. Still you can't expect your average punter to read up as much about these things as I do. I am unusual in being interested in this stuff !!

 

Still my point remains though. Whilst I feel sorry for these people if they had not been bailed out - who is now paying for it ? The taxpayer. That is me.

 

I read enough about Icesave to pull my money out. I am now having to pay for all those who didn't put as much effort into investigating their investment as me.

 

That is completely unfair on myself and many others in this country.

 

Would you not agree ? I have just had enough of the 'I deserve compensation' culture in this country. People get ****ed over. People lose out. It happens - you have to deal with it.

 

I don't quite understand why they always have to be 'bailed out' ? Especially by the taxpayer.

 

 

In a sense, you're right. However, had the Icelandic government honoured the legal guarantees they made, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. I don't think the British government should ever allow its citizens to be screwed over by another state and I'm glad they haven't this time either. I would expect the money to be reclaimed from Iceland in the end.

 

I learned quite a lot at school about this stuff - Higher Economics was actually an excellent course when I was at school. I took it as a crash course without a Standard Grade and it was well set out to the point that I was able to get an A for it - even with no prior knowledge. Not sure if it still is as good a course, though.

 

Savings and investments are either the same thing or different things depending on what context you put them in. In their simplest form, yes - putting any money (savings) in a bank is investing it. However, the waters have been muddied by misuse of the terms, both by individuals and institutions. Savings accounts are, by their very definition and rates of return, safer investments than others - especially when backed up by guarantees of compensation should the worst happen.

 

You can't expect people to look too deeply into the background of a country's economy when they're opening a small cash ISA, for instance, especially when experts from The Times, The Telegraph and other broadsheets/financial media are recommending the bank's products - and when the money is guaranteed in any case. I just don't think many people really thought that a developed nation could possibly go bust, and so the guarantee of 100% of the first ?35k meant it was safe.

 

I don't think it's a great example of "I deserve compensation" culture when all people want is what is legally entitled to them. Don't forget I'm a taxpayer too. What has happened to Icesave's UK customers is theft on a grand scale - no less.

[davemclaren]

That is a fair point. I do totally agree that a lot of individuals have been done over. However when putting money in a bank you are actually investing in it. I think the lack of financial education in this country is shocking. I learned nothing at School about any of this.

 

I had an account with Icesave myself but pulled it about 9 months ago. Still you can't expect your average punter to read up as much about these things as I do. I am unusual in being interested in this stuff !!

 

Still my point remains though. Whilst I feel sorry for these people if they had not been bailed out - who is now paying for it ? The taxpayer. That is me.

 

I read enough about Icesave to pull my money out. I am now having to pay for all those who didn't put as much effort into investigating their investment as me.

 

That is completely unfair on myself and many others in this country.

 

Would you not agree ? I have just had enough of the 'I deserve compensation' culture in this country. People get ****ed over. People lose out. It happens - you have to deal with it.

 

I don't quite understand why they always have to be 'bailed out' ? Especially by the taxpayer.

 

The FSCS had an obligation to cover some of it anyway so I imagine it will be contributing. The UK government is also taking up the guarantee that the Icelandic government has reneged on. The savings above ?50k are also being covered for some reason even though there were no explicit guarantees.

 

ICESAVE has assets in the UK whihc have been seized and th UK government is still seeking fund from its icelandic counterpart. Thus the total liability will be less than the figure you quote.

 

 

In this case I think it's a good thing.

[blairdin]

What the article doesn't mention - and I'm not sure if it's mentioned anywhere - is whether any of the UK insititutions are liable to cover any of the insurance costs on it.

 

UK insurers will be affected by this, whether they hold the contracts or not.

 

Alot high value insurance is reassured, irrespective of what the risk is. Think of it as the insurers insurer, who ensure that risk is shared throughout the market. There are thousands of insurers worldwide, but there are far fewer reinsurers and most or global companies. So irrespective of the insurer holding the claim, it will effect every other insurer as they will increase reinsurance premiums, which will in turn mean the insurers increase their premiums to the individuals and/or corporations they insure.

 

I also think it's a bit harsh criticising anybody for investing in a "dogdy looking Icelandinc bank". They were no more or no less dodgy than any other bank just six months ago.

[jambos are go!]

I'm no economist but wonder a few things. Where has all the cash gone that was raised by selling. Into safe cash havens I suspect waiting to be redeployed when the market bottoms out. Ordinary folk plus speculators and fund managers have presumably done this. They will presumably move back into the market when they think there is bound to be growth. Meanwhile some folk/funds who had say a million RBS shares a few year ago might soon have raised between ?5 - 10 million by selling them over the last year or two and have also been able to buy a million RBS shares for ?1-2 million at the bottom of a market that should grow. Is that nonsense?

 

I think also we have to account for the fact that the economy is different from 1929. Consumers have more power and assets - particularly houses. They will want things and will be a factor - and more importantly will want to move when things settle down.This could rekindle the housing market -hopefully more subdued and prudent. Is that right?

[Ulysses]

What's the difference between an investment banker and a pigeon?

 

 

A pigeon is still able to leave a deposit on a Ferrari.

[Charlie-Brown]

What's the difference between an investment banker and a pigeon?

 

 

A pigeon is still able to leave a deposit on a Ferrari.

 

Nice one.

[coppercrutch]

UK insurers will be affected by this, whether they hold the contracts or not.

 

Alot high value insurance is reassured, irrespective of what the risk is. Think of it as the insurers insurer, who ensure that risk is shared throughout the market. There are thousands of insurers worldwide, but there are far fewer reinsurers and most or global companies. So irrespective of the insurer holding the claim, it will effect every other insurer as they will increase reinsurance premiums, which will in turn mean the insurers increase their premiums to the individuals and/or corporations they insure.

 

I also think it's a bit harsh criticising anybody for investing in a "dogdy looking Icelandinc bank". They were no more or no less dodgy than any other bank just six months ago.

 

I am sorry.............but.................

 

Six months ago they were being talked about as being close to the wall.

 

Over, and over, and over, and ,over.............again....

 

I shut my account with them in 2007. If I can do it then why can't anybody else.....

[blairdin]

I am sorry.............but.................

 

Six months ago they were being talked about as being close to the wall.

 

Over, and over, and over, and ,over.............again....

 

I shut my account with them in 2007. If I can do it then why can't anybody else.....

 

That's fair enough if you know where to look to hear the rumours or read the reviews. So congratulations on your foresight.

 

Alot of people have (or perceive to have) better things to do with their lives than scrutinise financial markets, they just blindly trusted banks. Those people rely on the press to report on big stories - big for many is the first few pages of a newspaper or somewhere during the 6 o'clock news on the beeb. By the time the press started reporting on the credit crunch and it's affect on banking, it was too far gone and nowhere seemed completely safe.

 

The lasting effect of this financial crisis will be that people won't trust banks again.

 

I also don't think the tabloid press come out of this with much credit - this story should have been plastered over front pages for months, as opposed to filling page 5 after 4 pages discussing whos shagging who. But then, boring stuff like money doesn't sell papers to their readership. I wonder how many of their readership have lost money in some Icelandic bank that's been failing for months?

[Jamdub]

That's fair enough if you know where to look to hear the rumours or read the reviews. So congratulations on your foresight.

 

Alot of people have (or perceive to have) better things to do with their lives than scrutinise financial markets, they just blindly trusted banks. Those people rely on the press to report on big stories - big for many is the first few pages of a newspaper or somewhere during the 6 o'clock news on the beeb. By the time the press started reporting on the credit crunch and it's affect on banking, it was too far gone and nowhere seemed completely safe.

 

The lasting effect of this financial crisis will be that people won't trust banks again.

 

I also don't think the tabloid press come out of this with much credit - this story should have been plastered over front pages for months, as opposed to filling page 5 after 4 pages discussing whos shagging who. But then, boring stuff like money doesn't sell papers to their readership. I wonder how many of their readership have lost money in some Icelandic bank that's been failing for months?

 

 

That one is easy for me, I never trusted the feckers in the first place.

[coppercrutch]

That's fair enough if you know where to look to hear the rumours or read the reviews. So congratulations on your foresight.

 

Alot of people have (or perceive to have) better things to do with their lives than scrutinise financial markets, they just blindly trusted banks. Those people rely on the press to report on big stories - big for many is the first few pages of a newspaper or somewhere during the 6 o'clock news on the beeb. By the time the press started reporting on the credit crunch and it's affect on banking, it was too far gone and nowhere seemed completely safe.

 

The lasting effect of this financial crisis will be that people won't trust banks again.

 

I also don't think the tabloid press come out of this with much credit - this story should have been plastered over front pages for months, as opposed to filling page 5 after 4 pages discussing whos shagging who. But then, boring stuff like money doesn't sell papers to their readership. I wonder how many of their readership have lost money in some Icelandic bank that's been failing for months?

 

You don't need to scrutinise the markets to find out the entire Icelandic system was in trouble. This has even been in numerous papers over the last 6 months. Not in any great amount but a few articles by the more intelligent journos who know what they are talking about.

 

I do agree that most people just trusted this bank and I totally understand this. Ignorance is no excuse though. As you say hopefully this will make people actually look into what is happening with their savings. Not a bad thing to happen. Anyway these people are due to get their cash back anyway. Bailed out by the public, yet again.........

 

BTW looks like the Government are due to announce a 50% ish stake in HBOS and RBS tomorrow.......

 

That one is easy for me, I never trusted the feckers in the first place.

 

Me too !! And I earn form the ****ers too....Doesn't mean I have to like them.

[blairdin]

You don't need to scrutinise the markets to find out the entire Icelandic system was in trouble. This has even been in numerous papers over the last 6 months. Not in any great amount but a few articles by the more intelligent journos who know what they are talking about.

I do agree that most people just trusted this bank and I totally understand this. Ignorance is no excuse though. As you say hopefully this will make people actually look into what is happening with their savings. Not a bad thing to happen. Anyway these people are due to get their cash back anyway. Bailed out by the public, yet again.........

 

BTW looks like the Government are due to announce a 50% ish stake in HBOS and RBS tomorrow.......

 

Me too !! And I earn form the ****ers too....Doesn't mean I have to like them.

 

Completely agree with what you say in bold. Unfortunately, the biggest selling newspapers (I use the word loosely) in this country all come with a red top. The journalists you refer to don't often write in these papers - much more important things like Dear Deirdre or Striker to squeeze in - so a massive number of people miss out and this comes as a shock.

 

The current situation is a shock to me! I've watched the financial market for around a year now. Even with foresight and rantings of looneys such as your good self , I'm stunned that we are where we are now. Didn't think it would happen.

 

Wouldn't be a surprise about the RBS, but I would be surprised about HBOS given that the government practically brokered the Lloyds deal. I would hope partial nationalisation of HBOS consigns the Lloyds deal to history.

[coppercrutch]

Completely agree with what you say in bold. Unfortunately, the biggest selling newspapers (I use the word loosely) in this country all come with a red top. The journalists you refer to don't often write in these papers - much more important things like Dear Deirdre or Striker to squeeze in - so a massive number of people miss out and this comes as a shock.

 

The current situation is a shock to me! I've watched the financial market for around a year now. Even with foresight and rantings of looneys such as your good self , I'm stunned that we are where we are now. Didn't think it would happen.

 

Wouldn't be a surprise about the RBS, but I would be surprised about HBOS given that the government practically brokered the Lloyds deal. I would hope partial nationalisation of HBOS consigns the Lloyds deal to history.

 

Me too.

 

And I am a doom-monger. That is rather worrying is it not..

 

Totally agree with the red top angle. People will put more effort into watching X factor than where they put their life savings. Incredible.

 

As for HBOS it is looking like a definite. Who knows how that will affect this deal. Not sure Lloyds ever really wanted to buy them in the first place. If the Government own 50% of them then how much to Llyods pay ? How much so they own ?

 

Messy.

 

 

PS - Birds in X factor are tasty as ****...

[maroonlegions]

the pons are now moving and this has been planed for ages their agenda is on track for a WORLD GOVERNMENT,ARMY AND CURRENCY, just my thoughts but when they start to or move towards A CENTRALISATION of power on everything then one has to wonder.

 

 

http://dotconnectoruk.blogspot.com/2008/10/glen-beck-says-it-as-it-is-one-world.html

[Munch]

The party re commences at 8am tomorrow Copper, we have RBS Trading at around 70 pence a share, how low can they go ? and if they go to zero what happens ?

Is it a case of switch the lights out on your way out.

[coppercrutch]

The party re commences at 8am tomorrow Copper, we have RBS Trading at around 70 pence a share, how low can they go ? and if they go to zero what happens ?

Is it a case of switch the lights out on your way out.

 

**** knows what is going to happen. However I think it will be announced before 8am that the Government has bought a huge share in the company. Same goes for HBOS if the reports are to be believed.

 

This can only dilute the existing shares further I imagine. Their price could go down to 20-30p - who knows.

 

I know so many people who dived in last week for the 'bargain' price of 95p.

 

I did point out that every person I know who has bought a 'bargain' bank share is now well down. They were a bargain at ?4 and ?3 and ?2.......

 

Problem with banks is they now are going to make far far less profit for the foreseeable future. Their shares have been massively diluted. Some are now part owned by the Government. New regulations will be put in place to restrict their risk in future. I simply can't see why their share price is going to rocket anytime soon. Then again stranger things have happened.

 

I think we will see exactly the same in the property market. Many people thinking they have got a 'bargain' when in fact there is a long time to go.

 

Once property gets under its long term average Vs Salaries is when it becomes good value. No sooner. This is assuming property returns to its long term average. It has every time before so no reason for it to change. Especially on the back of this massive global financial failure...

[Munch]

**** knows what is going to happen. However I think it will be announced before 8am that the Government has bought a huge share in the company. Same goes for HBOS if the reports are to be believed.

 

This can only dilute the existing shares further I imagine. Their price could go down to 20-30p - who knows.

 

I know so many people who dived in last week for the 'bargain' price of 95p.

 

I did point out that every person I know who has bought a 'bargain' bank share is now well down. They were a bargain at ?4 and ?3 and ?2.......

 

Problem with banks is they now are going to make far far less profit for the foreseeable future. Their shares have been massively diluted. Some are now part owned by the Government. New regulations will be put in place to restrict their risk in future. I simply can't see why their share price is going to rocket anytime soon. Then again stranger things have happened.

 

I think we will see exactly the same in the property market. Many people thinking they have got a 'bargain' when in fact there is a long time to go.

 

Once property gets under its long term average Vs Salaries is when it becomes good value. No sooner. This is assuming property returns to its long term average. It has every time before so no reason for it to change. Especially on the back of this massive global financial failure...

 

We are in uncharted waters according to the Government so what has gone before you cannot count on happening again, i would not be banking on any bargains with shares right now, as you say RBS, AND HBOS, Will either be taken over by other more prudent banks, HSBC Who's shares are almost a tenner a share, or TSB,Santandor also prudent banks, this would not be good for Scotland and Edinburgh in particular with so many financial jobs at risk.

 

My own opinion is they should have been left to sort it out themselves, however whats done is now done, and lets see if the bail out works and things pick up.

 

As a sideline if they do fix it, Brown will come out of this smelling of roses, and this will in effect by the equivalent to Maggie's Falklands War, which saved her bacon as well.

 

Time will tell.

[coppercrutch]

We are in uncharted waters according to the Government so what has gone before you cannot count on happening again, i would not be banking on any bargains with shares right now, as you say RBS, AND HBOS, Will either be taken over by other more prudent banks, HSBC Who's shares are almost a tenner a share, or TSB,Santandor also prudent banks, this would not be good for Scotland and Edinburgh in particular with so many financial jobs at risk.

 

My own opinion is they should have been left to sort it out themselves, however whats done is now done, and lets see if the bail out works and things pick up.

 

As a sideline if they do fix it, Brown will come out of this smelling of roses, and this will in effect by the equivalent to Maggie's Falklands War, which saved her bacon as well.

 

Time will tell.

 

I can't believe his ratings are actually going up with this. It just confirms by thoughts that the majority of British people are stupid and can't think for themselves.

 

If you listen to him speak he says 'Started in America' at least 3 or 4 times in every single interview. If you hear any other Labour chump discussing the economy it also has to contain at least one 'Started in America'.

 

They are at the brainwashing yet again. Labour spin in full speed. It is ****ing disgusting.

 

 

It started here just as much as it started in America. We have gorged on this debt bubble even more than the Yanks. We have had a housing bubble even larger than the US.

 

Good to see the ever sensible Germans get straight to the point:

 

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article4925797.ece

 

"Merkel has declared that Britain and America are to blame for the crisis by repeatedly blocking her efforts to introduce better regulation into the markets"

 

We had to listen to Brwon last week stating that he is wanting Banks to act more responsibly and take less risk !!

 

It is a ****ing joke. The guy inherited as solid and stable an economy as we have seen for decades. Nice large surplus as well. He statd when he came ot power 'No more boom and bust'. He also stated 'I will not let house prices get out of control'.

 

By HIS OWN GOALS he has failed drastically. We now, at the end of the 'boom', have a massive public debt. The opposite should be true. In other countries and in other times in history he would be dragged out by the people and hung for his lies and destruction of the nation.

 

I would personally attach the noose, and kick him in the nads as he dropped to his death.

 

Sad thing is due to the stupidity of the general public it appears many think Brown is doing a good job of all this..

 

The fact he actually caused most of our problems seems to be lost on the public...

[Munch]

I can't believe his ratings are actually going up with this. It just confirms by thoughts that the majority of British people are stupid and can't think for themselves.

 

If you listen to him speak he says 'Started in America' at least 3 or 4 times in every single interview. If you hear any other Labour chump discussing the economy it also has to contain at least one 'Started in America'.

 

They are at the brainwashing yet again. Labour spin in full speed. It is ****ing disgusting.

 

 

It started here just as much as it started in America. We have gorged on this debt bubble even more than the Yanks. We have had a housing bubble even larger than the US.

 

Good to see the ever sensible Germans get straight to the point:

 

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article4925797.ece

 

"Merkel has declared that Britain and America are to blame for the crisis by repeatedly blocking her efforts to introduce better regulation into the markets"

 

We had to listen to Brwon last week stating that he is wanting Banks to act more responsibly and take less risk !!

 

It is a ****ing joke. The guy inherited as solid and stable an economy as we have seen for decades. Nice large surplus as well. He statd when he came ot power 'No more boom and bust'. He also stated 'I will not let house prices get out of control'.

 

By HIS OWN GOALS he has failed drastically. We now, at the end of the 'boom', have a massive public debt. The opposite should be true. In other countries and in other times in history he would be dragged out by the people and hung for his lies and destruction of the nation.

 

I would personally attach the noose, and kick him in the nads as he dropped to his death.

 

Sad thing is due to the stupidity of the general public it appears many think Brown is doing a good job of all this..

 

The fact he actually caused most of our problems seems to be lost on the public...

 

 

I Am with you on this one, however the amount of people i have talked to lately who only weeks ago were all for castrating the guy are now saying " what a good job he is doing, and how its good to have an experienced leader to lead us through these turbulent times ":welldone:

[Mr Loverman]

I was interested to read in one of today's papers that HBOS refused to allow Virgin Atlantic withdraw the ?1bn they had with them when HBOS "experienced difficulties" last month. They were able to withdraw the money after Lloyds TSB made their bid.

[shaun.lawson]

I can't believe his ratings are actually going up with this. It just confirms by thoughts that the majority of British people are stupid and can't think for themselves.

 

If you listen to him speak he says 'Started in America' at least 3 or 4 times in every single interview. If you hear any other Labour chump discussing the economy it also has to contain at least one 'Started in America'.

 

They are at the brainwashing yet again. Labour spin in full speed. It is ****ing disgusting.

 

 

It started here just as much as it started in America. We have gorged on this debt bubble even more than the Yanks. We have had a housing bubble even larger than the US.

 

Good to see the ever sensible Germans get straight to the point:

 

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article4925797.ece

 

"Merkel has declared that Britain and America are to blame for the crisis by repeatedly blocking her efforts to introduce better regulation into the markets"

 

We had to listen to Brwon last week stating that he is wanting Banks to act more responsibly and take less risk !!

 

It is a ****ing joke. The guy inherited as solid and stable an economy as we have seen for decades. Nice large surplus as well. He statd when he came ot power 'No more boom and bust'. He also stated 'I will not let house prices get out of control'.

 

By HIS OWN GOALS he has failed drastically. We now, at the end of the 'boom', have a massive public debt. The opposite should be true. In other countries and in other times in history he would be dragged out by the people and hung for his lies and destruction of the nation.

 

I would personally attach the noose, and kick him in the nads as he dropped to his death.

 

Sad thing is due to the stupidity of the general public it appears many think Brown is doing a good job of all this..

 

The fact he actually caused most of our problems seems to be lost on the public...

 

But it's going on all over the world, CC. If America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold: what policies could Brown possibly have pursued over the past decade to avoid this?

 

Yes, we have gorged on credit, and had an economy based on ludicrously inflated housing prices. But could Brown have stopped the massive amounts of foreign investment into the south-east which were partially responsible for such inflation, and would it even have been advisable to have attempted to do so? Could Brown have somehow changed our essentially service-based economy, which we've been ever since the demise of heavy industry, and given we are an island nation, is only natural anyway? Should Brown have pushed for us to join the Euro, so weakening the pound and stopping it being the safe haven for speculators it was for many years?

 

You, after all, are always one of the first to argue that a small group of unelected individuals effectively rule over us all anyway. And in a globalised world, big corporations have all the power: again, how could Brown have stopped this? Arguing that he's personally responsible for a mess seriously impacting on the whole world is simply daft - especially given it all goes back to the Democrats' well meaning but utterly foolhardy policies of the early 1990s.

 

And no, the public aren't stupid. Quite naturally, they're asking themselves who's best equipped to steer us through the crisis - an untested novice, or someone who, for all his faults, really understands economics. Haven't you noticed how country after country are essentially copying what Brown and Darling implemented a few days back? What makes more sense, CC? Playing the blame game - or pulling together so we can all get through this?

[Malinga the Swinga]

I was interested to read in one of today's papers that HBOS refused to allow Virgin Atlantic withdraw the ?1bn they had with them when HBOS "experienced difficulties" last month. They were able to withdraw the money after Lloyds TSB made their bid.

 

I would be concerned if I was shareholder at anything Branson runs as he didn't know the terms of contract with HBOS didn't allow him to get money back. If I was lending/giving a ?1 billion to anyone, I would sure like to know when I could get cash back.

[coppercrutch]

But it's going on all over the world, CC. If America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold: (1)what policies could Brown possibly have pursued over the past decade to avoid this?

 

Yes, we have gorged on credit, and had an economy based on ludicrously inflated housing prices. But could Brown have stopped the massive amounts of foreign investment into the south-east which were partially responsible for such inflation, and would it even have been advisable to have attempted to do so? Could Brown have somehow changed our essentially service-based economy, which we've been ever since the demise of heavy industry, and given we are an island nation, is only natural anyway? Should Brown have pushed for us to join the Euro, so weakening the pound and stopping it being the safe haven for speculators it was for many years?

 

You, after all, are always one of the first to argue that a small group of unelected individuals effectively rule over us all anyway. And in a globalised world, big corporations have all the power: again, how could Brown have stopped this? (2)Arguing that he's personally responsible for a mess seriously impacting on the whole world is simply daft - especially given it all goes back to the Democrats' well meaning but utterly foolhardy policies of the early 1990s.

 

(3)And no, the public aren't stupid. Quite naturally, they're asking themselves who's best equipped to steer us through the crisis - an untested novice, (4)or someone who, for all his faults, really understands economics. Haven't you noticed how country after country are essentially copying what Brown and Darling implemented a few days back? What makes more sense, CC? Playing the blame game - or pulling together so we can all get through this?

 

(1) The list is endless. His first budget was based on 'not letting house prices get out of control. He should have put in legislation to limit the amounts banks can lend out.

Brown could have done many of the things you listed above. For a start he could have ensured that after the end of their self proclaimed 'boom' our coffers were full of the rewards in readiness for the bad times. Instead he ensured the Government gorged on debt just as much as the individual. He was the Chancellor for 10 years after all. He failed miserably.

 

(2) This will impact all over the World as you say. HOWEVER different countries will be impacted to differing degrees. Browns policies have ENSURED that we are going to be one of the hardest hit. Nice one Gogs.

 

(3) Yes they are. The vast majority that is. As an example - the belief that property prices would rise forever was probably entrenched in half our population until last year. You would have to be stupid to believe that. Half this country believed that.

 

(4) Are you having a laugh ? The guy understands one thing. Borrow. Then borrow more. Then if you get in trouble borrow more. Then close your eyes and humm until it all gets better. That is what he knows. He is one of the most incompetent financial leaders this nation has ever seen.

 

As for those copying what the UK are doing I think you will find this action has been talked about by SERIOUS economists for a good while now. Roubini being the prime example. Brown has simply waited to see what happened with the US bailout and then went for plan B. It also looks like it has not even worked. Last week was supposed to be when things calmed down. It now looks like the UK is going to have to nationalise far far more than they had planned for. So Browns plan for part nationalisation has failed already.

 

Just because the rest look to possibly be following the lead does not mean sweet FA. Nationalising the banks is the very final last resort. All it shows is that everything else the Government has tried has failed.

 

Not exactly a glowing tribute to Browns great plan....

 

I think you are actually a very good example of this brainwashing of the public. You are clearly a smart chap. However you have been totally hoodwinked by the Labour spin.

[davemclaren]

Trust me, HBOS were a bargain at ?4. Why else would I buy them?

 

Anyway, Brown is no more guilty than any other UK leader over the last 20 years. He's just unluckier.

[Mr Loverman]

I would be concerned if I was shareholder at anything Branson runs as he didn't know the terms of contract with HBOS didn't allow him to get money back. If I was lending/giving a ?1 billion to anyone, I would sure like to know when I could get cash back.

 

I think he was saying that he was entitled to it but they refused owing to HBOS being in difficulties so in effect it was HBOS that were breaking the terms of the contract not VA.

[Malinga the Swinga]

Not one for a conspirancy theory, but could Brown have known fine well what was going to happen, but he lets things get worse and then bails out economy. Already public opinion puts labour party as the party to trust and gives them chance of winning election again.

 

Surely he wouldn't do that, but then again, he will do 'whatever it takes'.

[Munch]

Not one for a conspirancy theory, but could Brown have known fine well what was going to happen, but he lets things get worse and then bails out economy. Already public opinion puts labour party as the party to trust and gives them chance of winning election again.

 

Surely he wouldn't do that, but then again, he will do 'whatever it takes'.

 

i Posted on this forum months ago that Brown and Darling would pull a rabbit out of a hat to save his skin, the election is a year away now and the tide has turned in his favour.

[shaun.lawson]

Not one for a conspirancy theory, but could Brown have known fine well what was going to happen, but he lets things get worse and then bails out economy. Already public opinion puts labour party as the party to trust and gives them chance of winning election again.

 

Surely he wouldn't do that, but then again, he will do 'whatever it takes'.

 

Daft. The guy doesn't personally control the economy, you know!

 

The explanation's simple, and one familiar to all political leaders. "Events, my dear. Events".

[coppercrutch]

Trust me, HBOS were a bargain at ?4. Why else would I buy them?

 

Anyway, Brown is no more guilty than any other UK leader over the last 20 years. He's just unluckier.

 

Nonsense. Anyone knows that a well run country saves a surplus during the good times. Brown has had 10 years of SELF CONFESSED good times and has left us with the largest public debt ever.

 

To say he is no more guilty than any other leader is ridiculous.

 

He has broken all the rules. In all the wrong ways.

 

Being the Chancellor for 10 years and now the PM for one he has nobody else to blame. So who does he blame instead ? Another country.

 

I am astounded so many people actually believe him.

[shaun.lawson]

(1) The list is endless. His first budget was based on 'not letting house prices get out of control. He should have put in legislation to limit the amounts banks can lend out.

Brown could have done many of the things you listed above. For a start he could have ensured that after the end of their self proclaimed 'boom' our coffers were full of the rewards in readiness for the bad times. Instead he ensured the Government gorged on debt just as much as the individual. He was the Chancellor for 10 years after all. He failed miserably.

 

(2) This will impact all over the World as you say. HOWEVER different countries will be impacted to differing degrees. Browns policies have ENSURED that we are going to be one of the hardest hit. Nice one Gogs.

 

(3) Yes they are. The vast majority that is. As an example - the belief that property prices would rise forever was probably entrenched in half our population until last year. You would have to be stupid to believe that. Half this country believed that.

 

(4) Are you having a laugh ? The guy understands one thing. Borrow. Then borrow more. Then if you get in trouble borrow more. Then close your eyes and humm until it all gets better. That is what he knows. He is one of the most incompetent financial leaders this nation has ever seen.

 

As for those copying what the UK are doing I think you will find this action has been talked about by SERIOUS economists for a good while now. Roubini being the prime example. Brown has simply waited to see what happened with the US bailout and then went for plan B. It also looks like it has not even worked. Last week was supposed to be when things calmed down. It now looks like the UK is going to have to nationalise far far more than they had planned for. So Browns plan for part nationalisation has failed already.

 

Just because the rest look to possibly be following the lead does not mean sweet FA. Nationalising the banks is the very final last resort. All it shows is that everything else the Government has tried has failed.

 

Not exactly a glowing tribute to Browns great plan....

 

I think you are actually a very good example of this brainwashing of the public. You are clearly a smart chap. However you have been totally hoodwinked by the Labour spin.

 

(1) Yes, but could he? He inherited a strong economy only because of the direct failure of Tory government policy: namely, the ERM debacle. That's why there was no 'feelgood factor' among the public as the pound floated free to its natural level and the economy recovered - but because of these circumstances, sterling became a safe haven, in more and more of a false position. Could Brown really have stopped this? Could he also have ensured we were less of a service-based economy, and less closely tied to the US? I doubt it, to be honest.

 

(2) Perhaps. But the whole of the West seems to be heading for recession, including many countries who haven't gorged on credit and run up a huge debt. How come?

 

(3) I agree with you on that one! Exhibit A: my parents. Not content with starting up a disastrously ill-conceived small business in the early 1990s (with Britain deep in recession, they chose to open a chain of shops selling, wait for it, luxury Italian shoes, and as one shop failed, promptly opened another one ), when downsizing last year, instead of being sensible and making sure they had a nest egg, they moved straight into building a ?100,000 extension. I'm no economist, but I had more financial sense than them when I was 12 years old!

 

(4) Part of the reason he had to borrow is because our public services were in desperate, frantic need of being completely overhauled. Reluctantly, the socialist in me now accepts that, once you get to a certain point of expenditure, the rest seems destined to disappear through a bureaucratic black hole - but New Labour came to power amid a climate of public disgust at the Tories, and were expected to spend. There's still no real public appetite for the NHS to be seriously reformed, even now. Thus do political realities often constrain what can be achieved economically.

 

Until recently, Brown had been considered by most economists (Anatole Kaletsky, who's nobody's fool, for one) to have done a pretty good job as Chancellor, balancing the need for expenditure on public services while remaining business and corporation friendly. I also think you overestimate just how much power any British politician really enjoys anyway. Kenneth Clarke was Chancellor at a time of prosperity, but only because his policies had utterly failed: still, this made him King when the sun shone. Brown's crime is to be King as the sky is falling in. I doubt he's really any more culpable than any other Chancellor of the last 30 years, though.

 

Last year, you were on these forums bemoaning the bailout of Northern Rock. Yet recent events, and the actions of governments everywhere, have shown we actually had very little choice. I agree: we're at least a year too late with what's being done now. But given the fury the NR saga caused, would it really have been possible to act then, without the grim evidence we now have? Again, I doubt it. That everyone else is copying Brown is a vindication of his approach if you ask me - and finally, CC... 'hoodwinked by spin'? What spin? In case you hadn't noticed, the Tories are fully in support of what the government's doing: have they been 'hoodwinked' as well?

[davemclaren]

Nonsense. Anyone knows that a well run country saves a surplus during the good times. Brown has had 10 years of SELF CONFESSED good times and has left us with the largest public debt ever.

 

To say he is no more guilty than any other leader is ridiculous.

 

He has broken all the rules. In all the wrong ways.

 

Being the Chancellor for 10 years and now the PM for one he has nobody else to blame. So who does he blame instead ? Another country.

 

I am astounded so many people actually believe him.

 

I don't have the figures to hand ( but I'm sure you'll help me ) but my belief is that, at least until the start of the Credit Crunch, UK national debt as a percentage of GDP declined over the previous ten years. The next ten should be more interesting.

[Maximus]

Honestly, why are you all still fretting over this BS?! Switch off the TV and don't buy a paper. The brainwashing campaign is in full flow ATM. Panic, fear, panic, doom 24/7..... To **** with it all!

[coppercrutch]

What spin? In case you hadn't noticed, the Tories are fully in support of what the government's doing: have they been 'hoodwinked' as well?

 

The Tories are only going along with it because there is no real alternative. As I said this is a last resort. They do not want to be seen as 'scuppering' any rescue so will play the 'Working with everyone during this crisis' card.

 

Nationalising the banks is the final option.

 

As for Brown the simple fact is that he could have left this country in a far better state than he has. He was the chancellor for 10 years. He had immense power. He made poor choices. Everything he did was based on debt. Debt is the cause of the World's problems today.

 

I don't have the figures to hand ( but I'm sure you'll help me ) but my belief is that, at least until the start of the Credit Crunch, UK national debt as a percentage of GDP declined over the previous ten years. The next ten should be more interesting.

 

Got better as they continued the policies of the Tories. Then after about 2001 started to rise again until today. Also you must remember that due to debt taken on under the form of PFI's the actual figure is massive.

 

When Brown got handed the reigns the economy was on the up. The debt fell. During these 'boom' times he should have taken advantage and worked our way into a surplus. However he go greedy and went the other way.

 

http://cluaran.free.fr/debt.html

 

PS - HBOS deal now off according to Sky and Goodwin away tomorrow...

[davemclaren]

 

PS - HBOS deal now off according to Sky and Goodwin away tomorrow...

 

If true Edinburgh will be an interesting place tomorrow.

[jambos are go!]

It seems to me that Brown whether he is culpable or not seems to be the only national Leader that can at least fathom what is going on. Perhaps not surprising given he was Chancellor for 10 years. May be a case of him keeping his head whilst nobody else is. Its a huge moment for him and it could go either way. If it continues to be bad in the UK he's in real trouble. If the world follows his lead and things settle down he'll could be untouchable IMO and up there with Thatcher and Churchill as in terms of standing in the world and the nation will be grateful. A week is indeed a long time in politics.

[Cade]

This mess could be the thing that saves or buries Broon.

 

If he somehow gets us out of this mess (for which he shares the blame for), he may just sneak a wee win in the next election.

[coppercrutch]

It seems to me that Brown whether he is culpable or not seems to be the only national Leader that can at least fathom what is going on. Perhaps not surprising given he was Chancellor for 10 years. May be a case of him keeping his head whilst nobody else is. Its a huge moment for him and it could go either way. If it continues to be bad in the UK he's in real trouble. If the world follows his lead and things settle down he'll could be untouchable IMO and up there with Thatcher and Churchill as in terms of standing in the world and the nation will be grateful. A week is indeed a long time in politics.

 

You really believe that ? How long did it take to get a hold on the NR situation ? 4 months or so.

 

If Brown fathoms what is going on then he would have prepared us for this situation better in the first place.

 

He has put us in one of the worst positions of any country. Therefore you can conclude he has no clue what is going on. Unless of course he is intentionally ****ing everything up.

 

Either way he is culpable.

[shaun.lawson]

You really believe that ? How long did it take to get a hold on the NR situation ? 4 months or so.

 

If Brown fathoms what is going on then he would have prepared us for this situation better in the first place.

 

He has put us in one of the worst positions of any country. Therefore you can conclude he has no clue what is going on. Unless of course he is intentionally ****ing everything up.

 

Either way he is culpable.

 

You see, CC - you write all this terrific, really interesting stuff. But then you ruin it all with a lunatic comment like that! Why?

[shaun.lawson]

The Tories are only going along with it because there is no real alternative. As I said this is a last resort. They do not want to be seen as 'scuppering' any rescue so will play the 'Working with everyone during this crisis' card.

 

Nationalising the banks is the final option.

 

As for Brown the simple fact is that he could have left this country in a far better state than he has. He was the chancellor for 10 years. He had immense power. He made poor choices. Everything he did was based on debt. Debt is the cause of the World's problems today.

 

 

 

Got better as they continued the policies of the Tories. Then after about 2001 started to rise again until today. Also you must remember that due to debt taken on under the form of PFI's the actual figure is massive.

 

When Brown got handed the reigns the economy was on the up. The debt fell. During these 'boom' times he should have taken advantage and worked our way into a surplus. However he go greedy and went the other way.

 

http://cluaran.free.fr/debt.html

 

PS - HBOS deal now off according to Sky and Goodwin away tomorrow...

 

So you think public services should've just been left to rot, then? That's what happened under the Tories - and the first term of New Labour as well. "Hey folks! You may be unable to get around, stay healthy, or send your kid to a decent school, but never mind. I've balanced the budget: this is what matters!"

 

Well?

[coppercrutch]

You see, CC - you write all this terrific, really interesting stuff. But then you ruin it all with a lunatic comment like that! Why?

 

I don't think he is intentionally ****ing it up !!

 

I am just stating that is the only other option other than massive incompetence. IMO.

 

Either he is an evil genius and has planned all this. Or he has simply made a lot of pretty poor decisions.

 

I know which is the most likely.

[shaun.lawson]

I don't think he is intentionally ****ing it up !!

 

I am just stating that is the only other option other than massive incompetence. IMO.

 

Either he is an evil genius and has planned all this. Or he has simply made a lot of pretty poor decisions.

 

I know which is the most likely.

 

In common with, it would appear, pretty much every other politician and most businessmen throughout the length and breadth of Christendom.

[Malinga the Swinga]

I don't think he is intentionally ****ing it up !!

 

I am just stating that is the only other option other than massive incompetence. IMO.

 

Either he is an evil genius and has planned all this. Or he has simply made a lot of pretty poor decisions.

 

I know which is the most likely.

 

I think it's a combination of both. He is evil and made a lot of poor decisions.

[coppercrutch]

So you think public services should've just been left to rot, then? That's what happened under the Tories - and the first term of New Labour as well. "Hey folks! You may be unable to get around, stay healthy, or send your kid to a decent school, but never mind. I've balanced the budget: this is what matters!"

 

Well?

 

I don't think getting into more and more debt is worth the short term gain.

 

All the investment we have got for 'free' in the form of PFI will come out of our taxes for the next 20-50 years.

 

For all the masses of money that has been pumped into the NHS it is widely accepted that there has been little in the way of return.

 

Yes I agree the NHS is slightly better than 10 years ago from my experiences. However when you look at the cash that has been pumped into it most seems to have been pished against the wall.

 

The inefficiency of pretty much everything in this country horrifies me.

 

I think I should have been born a German.

[coppercrutch]

In common with, it would appear, pretty much every other politician and most businessmen throughout the length and breadth of Christendom.

 

Indeed. I just think his mistakes have been monumental. With the emphasis on mental.

 

See what I did there.

 

I think it's a combination of both. He is evil and made a lot of poor decisions.

 

Could be spot on. He was actually making jokes last week about banks going bust. That is so unlike him to be funny about a serious event. IMO he is actually loving this mess.

[Malinga the Swinga]

If, and only if, the deal between LLoyds and HBOS is cancelled, then what will the markets make of that. Suspension of the shares on the market sounds like the best plan as it will let everyone digest the news without the trademark panic moves.

 

If HBOS does not get taken over by LLoyds, and to be honest, I hope it doesn't, then I would guess that HSBC wil be standing buy.

 

Alternatively, if HBOS borrows enough from goverment to ride out crisis, could it be made viable again, but with Asda boy booted out and someone trusted taking over. Only problem is, who is trusted these days.

 

Only one other thing, please HBOS, get rid of Shane Riordan as a spokesman. He sounds like he is asleep half the time, and the other half of the time, he just sounds disinterested.

[shaun.lawson]

Indeed. I just think his mistakes have been monumental. With the emphasis on mental.

 

See what I did there.

 

 

 

Could be spot on. He was actually making jokes last week about banks going bust. That is so unlike him to be funny about a serious event. IMO he is actually loving this mess.

 

I agree. But only because he thinks he has the qualifications to get us out of it again - and of course, appreciates the political opportunity this whole thing has provided him.

[Malinga the Swinga]

I agree. But only because he thinks he has the qualifications to get us out of it again - and of course, appreciates the political opportunity this whole thing has provided him.

 

He certainly had the qualifications to get us into the mess.

 

Isn't it sad, I actually enjoy debating this crisis more than the football these days. God, I must be getting old.

[coppercrutch]

I agree. But only because he thinks he has the qualifications to get us out of it again - and of course, appreciates the political opportunity this whole thing has provided him.

 

Good point. I think the constant 'Started in America' spin in central to this. Get the public thinking poor wee Britain was sucked into this all through no fault of our own.

 

Brown has been talking up London as the World financial centre for years now. London is the place where many of these investment instruments and packages were dreamt up and are traded in their trillions on a daily basis.

 

Yet when it all goes teets up this is all a result of the big bad US - and we had nothing to do with it. Total con job from Brown. I think the other parties would give him more stick for it but don't want to be seen as being 'petty' at a moment like this. If this does settle down eventually I reckon they will go for the jugular. So they should.

 

Actually the Lib Dems are the only party who seem to have a grasp of what caused all this mess. Too much debt.

 

He certainly had the qualifications to get us into the mess.

 

Isn't it sad, I actually enjoy debating this crisis more than the football these days. God, I must be getting old.

 

Me too

 

I barely touch the Terrace these days...

[blairdin]

He was actually making jokes last week about banks going bust. That is so unlike him to be funny about a serious event. IMO he is actually loving this mess.

 

I agree with this.

 

Labour were facing humiliation at the next election, but irrespective of how much the this government contributed to this mess, events now are paying into their hands.

 

I honestly think we must be approaching the point where things are as bad as they get, if we are not there already. The only way is up, and Broon's cunning plan of using tax payer cash to underwrite the banking sector to jump start recovery from the coming recession (rest assured, recovery won't be instaneous) will be portrayed as the solution and the electorate will buy it in 2010. A bad thing IMHO.

 

Saying that, I think tonights developments will be a good thing for HBOS and will ultimately save them from Lloyds TSB clutches.

[coppercrutch]

I agree with this.

 

Labour were facing humiliation at the next election, but irrespective of how much the this government contributed to this mess, events now are paying into their hands.

 

I honestly think we must be approaching the point where things are as bad as they get, if we are not there already. The only way is up, and Broon's cunning plan of using tax payer cash to underwrite the banking sector to jump start recovery from the coming recession (rest assured, recovery won't be instaneous) will be portrayed as the solution and the electorate will buy it in 2010. A bad thing IMHO.

 

Saying that, I think tonights developments will be a good thing for HBOS and will ultimately save them from Lloyds TSB clutches.

 

I have said all along I don't even think Lloyds were interested in HBOS.

 

They have been one of the more sensible banks up until now. I always questioned why they would suddenly change this at the worst possible moment. If they end up buying HBOS it will be with serious sweeteners from the Government - and I don't just mean the public ones.

 

I agree with your ideas about the great Browns plan for recovery. Only problem being this is all too much for him. He is out of his depth IMO.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

So you think public services should've just been left to rot, then? That's what happened under the Tories - and the first term of New Labour as well. "Hey folks! You may be unable to get around, stay healthy, or send your kid to a decent school, but never mind. I've balanced the budget: this is what matters!"

 

Well?

 

Shaun, that's the fundamental problem with British politics in my lifetime. There has been a mantra of "increase spending = better service".

 

My wife is a nurse and despite the extra cash, she sometimes had to run a ward with 25 sick kids in it with just 3 staff (including her). When she was interviewed for jobs out here they couldn't believe that.

 

The point is that politicians were afraid of asking the big question, i.e. does the NHS system actually work rather than taking the easy option of throwing money at it.