Re: BoE/New Liebour to make coming recession worse

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:34:51 +0000, Maria
<mariathomson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:02:47 +0100, abelard <abelard3@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:06:25 +0000, Maria
<mariathomson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:41:31 +0000, Frank Booth Snr
<fbsnr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Ar wrote:


The interest rates are too low, and the sooner the "property
developers" and speculators have their avenue of money landering cut,
the better for the UK economy.

New Liebour created this fake boom, and they think by extending it
things will be better, what idiots.

Anyway, strange how they have never focused on savers, who have taken
it up the rear from New Liebour for the past 10 years. Only borrowers
are important to New Liebour press.

You really have no clue what you are talking about as per usual.

For a start the BoE sets interst rates, not the government. Secondly,
Labour didn't 'create' any boom, fake or otherwise. If you believe that,
it was their predecessors, the Tories who started cutting interest rates
in earnest fom Sept 1991 onwards, before the BoE were given full control
of determining interest rate levels in 1997. So you may just as well
blame the Tories for sowing the seeds of the 'fake boom'.


Actually low interest rates are not the problem - how can they be? It
was financial institutions deciding to lend to people like me who
could not even get a £500 bank loan in the previous 20 years that was
the problem.
I would still like to know what made the banks adopt this attitude of
lending to people who could ill-afford to pay money back

but you can 'afford' to pay it back....and so, i expect, will the
majority of the others....
it just means you'll have to cut down on fags...and maybe food!

No sorry - it does much deeper than that.
Prime example - my best friend who has been on income support for the
last 10 years with 5 children (ncluding one disabled), was lent
*£25,000* by Barclays. yes, £35k. They didn't even ask her income.
She has £50/week to pay her bills and everything. She was given
several credit cards which she used to pay the rent portion which the
council wouldnt' pay, and every so often Barclays would offer her
more. When she asked why, they said 'you've never been overdrawn, not
even for one day' and that was their rationale for lending her *£25k*
with her not even having a job. So she used the Barclays money to pay
off the credit cards and off she went again.
She has just arranged an IVA because now her last child is the only
one left at home, her income has fallen so low that she cannot pay
anymore.

this is a different issue...this is not a mortgage....
the interest rates will be obscene...consider how much she's paid
already....

in the past, nanny socialists have restricted what you could
borrow....thus taking your decisions for you....

How was it restricted?

rationing....eg strict rules that you couldn't borrow more than
2 or 2 1/2 times your income...that you had a record of saving
with them....that you 'had a steady job'....that you may have to
wait months or more until the lender had 'spare funds'

- it was
doomed from the start and they must have known that.

their problem is they are losing money on their deals...not that
you can't pay out the contract....

See above - they have recklessly lent without gauging people's ability
to pay at all.

please understand...they *don't care* about that....
what they care about is a balance of risks.....

eg it doesn't matter to them if say 10% default as long as the others
keep paying...and they can reclaim sufficient from repossessions

banking is at the heart a matter of *risk analysis*

northern crock have ignored 'good practice' and gambled.....
now wholesale loan money is rising in price....

a proportion will default...but the idiots only looked to short term
as they tried to drive out competitors....

of course if things get seriously bad then people like you just might
walk away....

People like me aren't so much of a problem because I limit myself to
borrowing what I know I can afford to pay back.

just so....now my point above was that people like you would not have
been able to borrow *despite* being able to self-assess yourself
as a good risk.....

not all people are 'equal'....
government rules are directed at control...and the least responsible

that is why we need franchise by examination!

Other people don't.
They do what is necessary at the time and worry about it later.

some other people don't mind cheating or going bankrupt.....
not all people are 'equal'

Since this policy was in operation in the US too, I cannot blame NuLab
or Tory however much I try,

the americans are far more educated in money....
nor were they inflating at anything like the uk rate....though that
may have changed lately (for a very good and sneaky reason)

But 2 milion foreclosures...?

this is a cycle....
are you telling me it is 2 million?
remember the usa is over 300,000,000....ie 5x the uk....thus the
equivalent in the uk would 400,000....
again that would not matter to the banks as long as the repossessions
would not drive them into the red....
the interest rates the banks charge are designed to cover losses
just as you pay a premium of shop prices to offset shop-lifting

unless someone can point me to the reason
why the banks changed their policy and it has some connection with
government policy.

the idiots at northern crock gambled....
and now the clown is trying to bail them out with your taxes.....

Yes, but why? Why not just let the market take care of it?

because those who lose out will blame the clown....
'new' labour have got a (false) reputation for good money
management...they were able to tar the tories with a label of
incompetence....
that is part of why they got into no. 10

this is a core problems with large banks semi-controlled
by the cartelised government fiat money....
it's called 'moral hazard'....
the clown can't afford to let a big bank fail....or he's lose
votes....so he props them up out of taxes.....

Why would people blame Brown when he is not responsible?

1)because politicians pretend they have far more control
than they have....
2)governments can undermine economies...as socialists
always do....by taking and wasting resources....
the clown has undermined the productive part of the economy
by tax and spend...as socialists always do

governments don't tend to generate wealth...just to undermine wealth

believe it or not...the smart arses in the banks know this full
well....that allows them to take ever increasing risks.....

the clown's splitting of the regulation from the (fraudulently
keyed) 'interest rates' is major part of this screw up.....
neither is the boe is not as 'independent' as the idiots believe

OK...in what way?
not sure what you question is here

the boe have a single target....that target is corrupt/false/
dishonest....it is set by the clown...
the clown also appoints the managers of the interest rates.....

the clown has also split of bank regulation from control of the money
supply....the regulation is doubtless also stuffed with his
cronies

this is an incompetent socialist government....in due course what
can go wrong will go wrong....
the clown has never run a whelk store....nor has bliar....they're a
bunch of empty headed posers.

what is surprising is that anyone would expect anything but
mismanagement

as usual i refer you to
http://www.abelard.org/inflation.htm
where the game is set out

regards

--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.