asperity Posted September 30, 2008 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2008 Obs you shot yourself down in the second sentence about little or no involvement of the state leading to a widening of the wealth gap (an OBSession of yours apparently). This present government has increased government involvement in the minuteae of all our lives to an unprecedented extent and, as you have said on numerous occasions, the wealth gap has never been so large!! So OBviously less government is the way to go, and as a first step may I suggest dumping that carbuncle that calls itself "Europe"? They need us more than we need them to be honest. And then get rid of Quangoes, let all those super qualified people find their true earning level on the world stage as I have had to do over the last 40 years!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted September 30, 2008 Report Share Posted September 30, 2008 The reason we're currently in this financial mess, is through less State involvement in Financial Regulation - Maggie de-regulated the banks years ago, and this is what the anarchy of an unrestricted private sector brings - so no shooting in the foot Asp. However, I will agree with you on "the Elephant in the Room" the EU - BUT none of the three main Parties are committed to getting us out of that mess , I also agree with you on Quangos, a practise started under Maggie, and continued ever since. The reason the wealth gap has widened (indeed we're now getting scare stories of increasing child poverty, and increasing homelessness, with waiting lists for social housing increasing by 75% ): is simply because this Government isn't prepared to tax the rich and exercise a redistrutive tax system - probably don't want to upset their Party donors Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 1, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2008 Wrong again. The financial crisis in this country has been brought about by state interference in the financial services which has made it impossible for banks to borrow from each other. This is being led, of course, by our masters in Brussels who bring in legislation without us having any say in its make up. The mindless pursuit of "fairness" and "equality" by the EUSSR just ends up in the chaos we are now witnessing because the real world is not "fair" and we are not all equal. And I say again don't blame Maggie, blame Ted Heath for getting us into the corrupt edifice that is the EUSSR in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted October 1, 2008 Report Share Posted October 1, 2008 Wrong again. The financial crisis in this country has been brought about by state interference in the financial services which has made it impossible for banks to borrow from each other. Â Wrong, Having lent too much money to borrowers with poor credit ratings, banks/building societies have found themselves with high levels of defaults, arrears and repossessions as borrowers are struggling to sell their homes or keep up with repayments. Â In turn, this has restricted banks? ability to lend to individuals and businesses - and each other. The interest rate on wholesale lending between banks has started to rise, making it more expensive for banks to get funds. They are now relying on state interference to help sort it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 1, 2008 Report Share Posted October 1, 2008 Thanks Wolfie for shining a light on the reality; perhaps Asp hasn't got a TV on his ship and can't get newspapers?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 1, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2008 Perhaps you both are relying too much on the TV and newspapers for your information to get the true picture. The main stream media generally are lazy and just tell us what government wants us to hear. Unfortunately what the BBC says is no longer the truth. You need to spread your sights wider to get the full story. Blaming "greedy bankers" is the easy way out and the obvious scapegoat for our incompetent and, lets face it, ignorant politicians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 1, 2008 Report Share Posted October 1, 2008 Asp: we have an "I want it, I want it now" generation, who've been living on credit beyond their means; this was encouraged by bankers loaning funds to folk they must have known couldn't repay; plus a range of fiscal manipulations worthy of a casino - well the party's over and everyone's got the hangover. IF Brown had intervened to stop "the Party", rather than encouraging it, in fact worse, by increasing Government borrowing and PFIs etc; you would have been the first to criticise such Government intervention. Now, were witnessing the ultimate Government intervention - Nationalisation of the Banks - my only concerns are: will the tax payer get a return on this investment, and will the fat cat financial speculators have their golden parachutes exchanged for a spell in prison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2008 And you know the answers to your questions are "NO" and errrrmmmmm "NO". And you're right that Prudence Brown encouraged the populace to borrow like there's no tomorrow. I'm not saying the bankers are blameless, but they were following the rules laid down by the government of the day, and if they haven't broken the law how are you going to justify locking them up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted October 2, 2008 Report Share Posted October 2, 2008 but they were following the rules laid down by the government of the day  Any rules for banking were only guidelines. The banks were free to borrow and lend as they wished. Some bank managers got greedy and it's their banks that are now in trouble. Is it any wonder that in the US the people don't want these corrupt managers or their banks bailed out by the taxpayer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 2, 2008 Report Share Posted October 2, 2008 Errm, I think the problem was/is, that there were no "rules" or certainly insufficient "rules"; and the financial spivs were making their own "rules" up as they went along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 3, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2008 As a matter of interest a certain Paul Myners is a director of Hedge Fund manager GLG until recently 10% owned by Lehmans. Mr Myners gave money to Gordon's leadership fund and also to Gordon's favourite think tank the Smith Institute. Gordon rewarded him with an appointment to the treasury's pension review. Derek Tullet has a broking firm which specialises in servicing hedge funds which want to go short stocks and derivatives. Mr Tullet has given large amounts of money to the Labour Party. Gilad Hayeem of Lehman Brothers backed hedge fund Marble Bar Asset Management contributed to Hillary Benn's deputy leadership campaign. So I don't think the government will be in a hurry to send their backers to prison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted October 3, 2008 Report Share Posted October 3, 2008 As a matter of interest a certain Paul Myners is a director of Hedge Fund manager GLG until recently 10% owned by Lehmans. Mr Myners gave money to Gordon's leadership fund and also to Gordon's favourite think tank the Smith Institute. Gordon rewarded him with an appointment to the treasury's pension review. Derek Tullet has a broking firm which specialises in servicing hedge funds which want to go short stocks and derivatives. Mr Tullet has given large amounts of money to the Labour Party. Gilad Hayeem of Lehman Brothers backed hedge fund Marble Bar Asset Management contributed to Hillary Benn's deputy leadership campaign. So I don't think the government will be in a hurry to send their backers to prison. Â And in 2 years only the names and the party will have changed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 3, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2008 Many a true word spoken in jest......................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 3, 2008 Report Share Posted October 3, 2008 Don't dispute your post Asp; I've said on here that "new" Labour have been "sucking up" to the City for ten years, and they've just brought back into cabinet the spin doctor chiefly responsible. However, as Wolfie infered, we're going to get more of the same from the other lot, starting with the antics of their chief donor - Lord Ashcroft! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.