First | < Previous 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Next > | Last
|
| |
|
Message 1 - posted by Alice_mc
(U2268968)
, Apr 19, 2008
Should the government be helping the banks? The Bank of England will swap £50bn worth of government bonds in exchange for British banks' mortgages. It hopes the scheme will encourage banks to start lending to each other again.
The banks have been asking for longer term finance from the Bank of England so they can fill the funding gap, made by the collapse of mortgage-backed securities last year. It will be the biggest ever special initiative by the British monetary authorities to supply liquidity to the British banking system. Good move or not?
|
| |
|
|
|
Message 2 - posted by Princess Anne
(U7991547)
, Apr 19, 2008
Its a fantastic opportunity for a mortgage strike. A default on a bank loan will get immediate action such as the bailifs but the government will be reluctant to make people homeless as one of their jobs is to not make people homeless. Unfortunately? will the banks be left in charge of collecting and administrating the loans? Or a perfect job for the post office (collecting and administrating) they need the business. Just a thought.
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 3 - posted by JamesStGeorge
(U225334)
, Apr 19, 2008
No they should raise interest rates to attract in people's money.
If your mortgage becomes owned by the government you are presumably then a council house occupier!
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 4 - posted by View from the North
(U2337741)
, Apr 19, 2008
Adding up all the billions reported to be written off by banks around the world, billions upon billions of pounds worth, and all blamed on the American sub-prime market, one can only assume that (1) a phenomenal number of very poor Americans have been given money to buy expensive houses; (2) a huge proportion of those have defaulted on their mortgages; (3) the houses have been unable to have been resold; and (4) banks round the world have been negligent in taking on debts that could not possibly be repaid in the USA.
I find that scenario frankly unbelievable in so many ways.
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 5 - posted by Ned Long
(U3078413)
, Apr 19, 2008
Now let's see. The banks have bought a load of virtually worthless paper as securities, and now that they have found out that they have bought rubbish, then panic sets in. The same managers who made these catastrophic decisions are all in situ, and no doubt in the fullness of time be rewarded by massive performance bonuses. But as money is now tight, they refuse to lend to each other, screw mortgage holders with rates higher than the bank rate, and so we are now approaching the end of civilisation as we know it.
So the government in effect takes on this worthless collateral, and replaces it with "government bonds"; which in effect the taxpayer bailing out the banks for their own mismanagement. But it is simply printed money, and to add insult to injury, they make the life of these bonds a year only, so that this massive cash injection does not appear on the debit pages of the accounts of Great Britain PLC.
We are in deep doodoo. Deeper than many realise. This is not something that will simply blow over in a week or so. So batten down the hatches, for we are in for a bumpy ride!
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 6 - posted by anonimus
(U2933510)
, Apr 19, 2008
Nach! Whadaya expect - in a banana republic ruled by stooges of organised economic crime syndicates? 
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 7 - posted by Binkie Huckaback
(U2326685)
, Apr 19, 2008
If banks made bad decisions they should be allowed to stew in their own juice. It's a free market.
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 8 - posted by View from the North
(U2337741)
, Apr 20, 2008
Yes Binkie, banks are the very icons of private industry, and corporate greed, "producing" wealth from "funny money" ... strange that they should immediately trun to the taxpayer to bail them out for their shockingly bad and negligent decision-making. Will it affect their golden handshakes, massive salaries and astronomical bonuses? No need to answer the question!
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 9 - posted by i.moore
(U1719778)
, Apr 20, 2008
The problem is savings, we don't save enough to support our consumption, with the result we needed to securitise mortgage debt in order to sell it to overseas savers. When that market ground to a halt, 50% of our motrgage market dried up, with it a large chunk of our debt laden conumer economy. So the BofE stepping in with its £50 billion is just filling in the gap left by the loss of the secutised mortgage market.
This plan can only be seen as a very short term plan, to have the BofE print money isn't sustainable, for the money cycle before was, we buy goods from China and Oil from the middle east and they lend money back to us. Now we continue to buy over seas goods, but not getting the money lent back to us, and the BofE prints more money. That is vey inflationary!
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 10 - posted by Princess Anne
(U7991547)
, Apr 20, 2008
'...'we' don't save enough to support our consumption...'. There are complaints on another notice board about the use of the first-person, plural personal pronoun (WE) as used by the BBC by its reporters on the Today programme. I must say I do very little else but save money and consume very little so count me out. Yours truly scrooge.
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 11 - posted by i.moore
(U1719778)
, Apr 20, 2008
But as a nation our savings rates are abysmal and collapsed under this Labour Government, so 'we' is applicable to us as a country.
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 12 - posted by Coiled Spring
(U2415441)
, Apr 20, 2008
This economy is built on massive credit encouraged by ridiculously rising house prices. No matter how much money is pumped in there will come a day of reckoning, which isn't far away.
Once people start to cut back on their spending, employment will begin to suffer and because the economic base is a nebulous one being supported on pillars of credit, the whole rotten lot will come tumbling down.
We are already heading towards recession (despite the ostrich like politicians telling us otherwise) and it will not be too long before this country is seen for what it is - a nation of well-off debtors.
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 13 - posted by Princess Anne
(U7991547)
, Apr 20, 2008
True but its not any governments fault, there is no culture of saving, the building societies where people used to q at have dissapeared, prior to that there were post office savings (prince charles on the 6p, anne on the 3p), stamps. The encouragement is too put money into bricks and mortar? I don't know why. But treating a home as a pile of money can't be healthy for society.
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 14 - posted by Princess Anne
(U7991547)
, Apr 20, 2008
I've just thought (danger, danger), nobody needs to save, the days of young courting couples saving to get married are long gone. Got a tenner buy a house. At todays prices most couples in the sixties would probably have to save, what? about £20,000? to buy their first house. Of course having to work scrimp and save to get started also has the knock on effect of 'breeding' responsibility.
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 15 - posted by The Magnetist
(U2350104)
, Apr 20, 2008
"If banks made bad decisions they should be allowed to stew in their own juice. It's a free market."
Perhaps you will now see what I have been saying on this board for ages... There is no Free Market.
The concept of the Free Market only applies when it is advantageous to a few. As soon as the Free Market starts to look as if it will hurt these people, it is suddenly bypassed.
This is probably the biggest SpinCon that has ever been visited on the British public.
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 16 - posted by The Magnetist
(U2350104)
, Apr 20, 2008
"We are already heading towards recession (despite the ostrich like politicians telling us otherwise) and it will not be too long before this country is seen for what it is - a nation of well-off debtors."
What annoys me is that I do not have debts but equally, I do not have property but I bet it will be people like me that will be caned when the recession hits. I am already looking at the end of a contract in a collapsing economy. Doesn't look good for people like me and we have not been irresponsible.
I have lived within my means but I will no doubt suffer before the fat cats and speculators who have caused this situation.
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 17 - posted by The Magnetist
(U2350104)
, Apr 20, 2008
"But as a nation our savings rates are abysmal and collapsed under this Labour Government, so 'we' is applicable to us as a country."
It is not a Labour Government, it is a 'New Labour' one, quite a different beast. It is just another Tory one and it is these Conservative Lite Spivist policies that have gotten us in this mess. If the Conservatives get in it will just be more of the same. I doubt it would be much different if the Lib Dems get in.
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 18 - posted by hotmousemat
(U2388917)
, Apr 20, 2008
You can't just 'save'; if you want interest of any kind you have got to save 'in' something. If you save in the building society you are saving by funding other peoples' mortgages. If you save in a pension you are saving either by buying into the stock market or buying securities (that is loans; like mortgages). Even if you just keep it in cash, whether UK cash maintains its value depends on the performance of UK plc.
People who saved in the form of taking a leveraged postion in real estate (i.e. buying a house on a mortgage) were making a perfectly rational decision - if not, what else should they have put their money into? China; dotcoms; Railtrack; bonds? Because, unless you keep your savings under the mattress, the people who you give it to will have to be doing something like that.
I really find it baffling that people are contemptuous of a socialist approach to running an economy and yet have no understanding of how the capitalist alternative they prefer actually works.
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 19 - posted by walrus
(U2154212)
, Apr 20, 2008
I see little point in starting this hare.
We have no input to the decision making and no say.
The comments so far perhaps release pent feelings but do nothing to influence either the government, the BofE or the major banks.
Whilst agreeing with everybody's comments I can only remark on the abysmal failure, again, of MPs of all parties to voice the outrage apparent here.
Yet again, our elected representives are supine and useless in an emergency.
Little wonder we finished up in Iraq.
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 20 - posted by Jamaeli
(U2334539)
, Apr 20, 2008
It is not a Labour Government, it is a 'New Labour' one, quite a different beast. It is just another Tory one and it is these Conservative Lite Spivist policies that have gotten us in this mess. If the Conservatives get in it will just be more of the same. I doubt it would be much different if the Lib Dems get in. Quoted from
this message
While I agree with your assertion that the Tories would unfortunately be much the same, you continue to absolve the left of much responsibility. Many of the government ministers under Blair and Brown were about as left-wing as left-wing politics got in the 70s. Like it or not, this IS a LABOUR government. In terms of 'traditional Labour' all that's changed is what was necessary in order to get the population to take the left seriously. So, once again, why do you think that a true left option will ever be adopted? Humans are not bees after all.
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
First | < Previous 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Next > | Last
|