Riiiiight ... the economic crisis in the UK that precipitated recession in the UK is/was not part of the same economic crisis that precipitated the recession across the Western economies in the same way at the same moment ... OK, got it



BTW, an example of "unjustifiable" is making bets that you don't have the capitalisation to bear if you lose.
But I guess that never happened either, eh?


Which regulation and controls were these?
Bear in mind we are looking for the specific controls that would have prevented the financial crash, not some airy-fairy general (and fictional) mentions of "controls" ... now's your chance to be specific for once.
Which controls did Brown take away that would have prevented the crash?


Okaaay ... so giving responsibility [uto[/u the BoE (interest rates) was a mistake and taking responsibility [ufrom[/u the BoE (Financial regulation) was also a mistake.
Hmmm.



"Worded that wrongly"???? ... bloody hell, I'll say you did ... 100% wrongly


First you say he was wrong to take it away from the BoE.
Then, when you are told that he actually gave it TO the BoE ... suddenly that was the mistake instead.
Why don't you admit that it doesn't really matter who did what or when, that you don't actually require reasons, you just know that EVERYTHING was Brown's fault?

"completely ignored what was going on"? ... to have ignored it, he must have known about it ... so, go on then, you tell us what was "going on" and how he and the rest of the Western economies who spotted it too and "completely ignored" it



You see Sunshine, where he actually went wrong was not in [utaking away[/u regulation (he didn't) but in [unot tightening[/u the regulation that he inherited from the previous bunch of spivs.
(Here's your homework ... Google "Thatcher" and "Big Bang" and "deregulation" and see if you come up with "tighter regulation"icon_wink.gif.
The problem was actually that neither he [unor other Western governments[/u (or you ... or me) realised was the degree of inter-relation between banks and financial institutions even in different countries.
The banks etc were busily trading in financial instruments which were basically packaged turds, the contents of which governmental agencies were, largely, unaware.
Whilst the FSA (for example) was busy looking at individual institutions, no-one noticed how hugely dangerous this inter-relation was (except the institutions themselves and they didn't actually care as it wasn't their own money they were gambling ... even to the point where Goldman Sachs Group sold $40bn of securities (containing sub-prime mortgages) [uto its own clients[/u whilst, at the same time betting on a huge drop in the value of those securities. So, basically THEY KNEW they were selling turds ... to clients who paid them and trusted them).
Even the credit-rating agencies were giving this stuff top ratings.
But, I'm forgetting that this was obviously Gordon Brown's fault.



Of course, the Conservatives criticised him at that time for not [uloosening[/u regulation ... Christ, imagine where we'd be now if that had happened?
We'd better not vote for them, eh?

Just to keep this font of knowledge up to date, we need to add that Gordon Brown took away interest rate decisions from the BoE, oh hang on, now, he GAVE them that responsibility, no hang on ... oh whatever he did, he shouldn't have done it, even if he didn't ... or did.
The UK financial crisis was not part of the Western world's financial crisis.
Gordon Brown eradicated banking regulation and control.
Borrowing is not cheap at the moment.

It's getting rather long, this list.

An earlier question to BiffasBoys to which (s)he has yet to offer a reply...



I'm guessing the answer will be "Gordon Brown"

:8xed5wam
"Worded that wrongly"???? ... bloody hell, I'll say you did ... 100% wrongly


First you say he was wrong to take it away from the BoE.
Then, when you are told that he actually gave it TO the BoE ... suddenly that was the mistake instead.
Why don't you admit that it doesn't really matter who did what or when, that you don't actually require reasons, you just know that EVERYTHING was Brown's fault?

"completely ignored what was going on"? ... to have ignored it, he must have known about it ... so, go on then, you tell us what was "going on" and how he and the rest of the Western economies who spotted it too and "completely ignored" it



You see Sunshine, where he actually went wrong was not in [u:8xed5wamtaking away[/u:8xed5wam regulation (he didn't) but in [u:8xed5wamnot tightening[/u:8xed5wam the regulation that he inherited from the previous bunch of spivs.
(Here's your homework ... Google "Thatcher" and "Big Bang" and "deregulation" and see if you come up with "tighter regulation"icon_wink.gif.
The problem was actually that neither he [u:8xed5wamnor other Western governments[/u:8xed5wam (or you ... or me) realised was the degree of inter-relation between banks and financial institutions even in different countries.
The banks etc were busily trading in financial instruments which were basically packaged turds, the contents of which governmental agencies were, largely, unaware.
Whilst the FSA (for example) was busy looking at individual institutions, no-one noticed how hugely dangerous this inter-relation was (except the institutions themselves and they didn't actually care as it wasn't their own money they were gambling ... even to the point where Goldman Sachs Group sold $40bn of securities (containing sub-prime mortgages) [u:8xed5wamto its own clients[/u:8xed5wam whilst, at the same time betting on a huge drop in the value of those securities. So, basically THEY KNEW they were selling turds ... to clients who paid them and trusted them).
Even the credit-rating agencies were giving this stuff top ratings.
But, I'm forgetting that this was obviously Gordon Brown's fault.



Of course, the Conservatives criticised him at that time for not [u:8xed5wamloosening[/uThe responsibility to act in the best interest of the economy by using interest rates to control the demand for lending...


You seem incapable of realising that it was errors by Gordon. Brown that left the UK in such a mess.

The FSA? Stroke of genius that. He set it up. It failed, catastrophically.

Brown has openly admitted he made a terrible mistake in not knowing the make up of the market before he went ahead with his lunatic plans.

You don't know the market you' re passing regulation on?

What sort of basis is that for running an economy & holding the purse strings?

You're wrong on interest rate setting.

I was actually asking for a comparison on the growth figures for Eurozone countries, instead of you banging on about the irrelevant & incomparable USA of A.

Why did Gordon Brown change the way interest rates were set?

This change gave rise to huge increases in lending, which he of course was happy to cream the taxes off.

A doubling in public spending, £320bn to £640bn per annum and the massive structural deficit we have, was/is down to Gordon Brown. Where has all that money gone?

Did he really truly believe he had become the first Chancellor in history to abolish boom & bust? He took the latter to record levels.

With all that money coming in, why run a deficit at all?

Remind us again how the wealth gap grew like never before under his watch.

The house price bubble took home ownership out of the reach of so many, thus putting more pressure on the state.

Why is it not his fault that he did not keep a very close eye on the economy?

Did he not see any of the quarterly statistics on, for example, mortgage lending etc?

The banks have become a very convenient scapegoat. They could only do as they did because, excuse the unintended pun, Brown turned a blind eye to everything that was going on.

Where is he these days? Leaving Miliband & Balls to trot out the 'it's all the banks fault' line.

I was only 2 in 1997 remember!!

Whether you were or not, it would still leave sufficient time to learn how to use the quote function correctly.

Oh and that picture is from 1977

It did indeed fail.


You misquote him, he actually said he hadn't realised the degree of interconnectivity of the banking markets.
Frankly, looking back at the way the crisis engulfed the Western banking system, which governments did realise?
Also, who knew that the contents of the packages the banks were buying and selling contained all those US sub-prime mortgages? Mervyn King says he didn't know, ditto Ben Bernanke, neither did I, did you know?


Look at sub-prime ... if you are lending to people who you know can't afford to repay, when you are lending more than 100% of the property value to people with a bad credit rating, you are taking massive risks ... unless, of course, you sell that debt straight away and it's no longer your problem.
Which is what they did.
The BoE's decisons on UK interest rates did not cause US lenders to lend to sub prime customers.


Why?
Is the zone that has to bail-out Greece and protect the fragility of Spain and Italy somehow more relevant and comparable to the UK than the US is?
Has the Eurozone loaned money direct to targeted industries in the way that Obama did?
Clue : The answer is no and no.


To control inflation.
Why have the Conservatives left that responsibility with the monetary policy committee of the BoE?
To control inflation.


Prior to the crisis the deficit was roughly the same as John Major left behind and lower than most Western economies, the deficit rose hugely after that due to reduced tax-takes rather than huge hikes in public spending between 2007 and 2010.

Do you think that the Conservatives efforts to reduce the deficit are worth the huge debt that is now soaring way beyond Brown and Darling's levels?


By comparison with the previous governments who had presided over two recessions, he was doing pretty good when he made that speech.
Nonetheless, the comment he made about boom and bust was definitely hubristic, as everyone would have their own interpretation of it.


See above.


Wrong again.
It didn't.
The only stats I've seen are from the IFS, showing that he only succeeded in halting the growth of the gap that had been occurring under the Conservatives.
But you say it did, so show us the stats.


Excuse me?
You now agree that house prices are too high? A few pages back in this thread you denied it.
At last, a relevant point about the need for social housing (which, incidentally, is what the thread is sort of about).

Don't know why Jerry Chicken is so ageist to be honest.

With age comes wisdom.

You've got ages to wait yet, if ever.

You must be the exception to the rule.

It almost classes as a retort, almost.

This is as good a place to put this...

Football supporter politics, the politics of party and blind allegiance to one party colour irrespective of policy or daft or thick prats in charge...

Speaking of which, Boris Johnson wrote some utter shiote in his Telegraph column today, its here [urlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10327126/At-last-we-see-Ed-in-his-true-colours-waving-the-red-flag.html[/url and in doing so will have pleased the football supporter style party political followers of his particular flag and scarf colour.

Fact is, Boris was probably just nodding off to sleep on Sunday evening when suddenly, almost lost to sleep he sat bolt upright and cried out "Fook I haven't written my Telegraph bollax this week yet" and so dashing to the word processor he let rip with some completely senseless football style chanting about "the other side", delving the depths of out of date stereotype and hyperbole, standing on his seat at Wembley stadium leading the chant for his end of the stadium, "Call them Socialists" he chants as if none of us know what a socialist is but must immediately assume its something bad because Boris is using it as an insult.

Fact of the matter is that this current Labour Party is no closer to Socialism than, say, John Major was, or William Hague in his leadership days, or FFS David Cameron was, until he got elected and threw off the sheeps clothing to reveal his vindictive side - does anyone really believe that todays Labour Party deserves the title of "socialists" even when used as an insult ? Really ?

As a thing of bollax his column should at least distract attention away from this weeks media criticism of His David (whatever this weeks criticism is going to be, has he left official papers or a child or two lying around unattended recently?), but it fails even in that and just sits there on the page, looking like something you wouldn't want to stand in if it were on the pavement, and smelling like it too.

Football supporter politics at its poorest, and from the Mayor of London too.

Not this silly sound bite again. According to you anyone who passes a different opinion to you is either engaging in 'football supporter politics' or propaganda. Jeez give it a rest.

You know the bit about age and wisdom ?

We'll wait for you to catch up at the next service station in life.

You are good at sound bites but unfortunately not a lot else.

At no point have I said social housing is wrong.

There is no subsidy. Seems quite smart to me. Government provides capital in far smaller amounts than it would were it to invest in social housing stock. This money isn't lost, it's secure & will not suffer from inflationary pressures.

There is no ongoing capital cost. Once any property is sold, HMG gets it's index linked money back. It's also the preferential creditor should any mortgage be defaulted upon.

The house building market is kick started, safely.

None of his rank alongside 'No more boom & bust'

:wmsomba6
"Worded that wrongly"???? ... bloody hell, I'll say you did ... 100% wrongly


First you say he was wrong to take it away from the BoE.
Then, when you are told that he actually gave it TO the BoE ... suddenly that was the mistake instead.
Why don't you admit that it doesn't really matter who did what or when, that you don't actually require reasons, you just know that EVERYTHING was Brown's fault?

"completely ignored what was going on"? ... to have ignored it, he must have known about it ... so, go on then, you tell us what was "going on" and how he and the rest of the Western economies who spotted it too and "completely ignored" it



You see Sunshine, where he actually went wrong was not in [u:wmsomba6taking away[/u:wmsomba6 regulation (he didn't) but in [u:wmsomba6not tightening[/u:wmsomba6 the regulation that he inherited from the previous bunch of spivs.
(Here's your homework ... Google "Thatcher" and "Big Bang" and "deregulation" and see if you come up with "tighter regulation"icon_wink.gif.
The problem was actually that neither he [u:wmsomba6nor other Western governments[/u:wmsomba6 (or you ... or me) realised was the degree of inter-relation between banks and financial institutions even in different countries.
The banks etc were busily trading in financial instruments which were basically packaged turds, the contents of which governmental agencies were, largely, unaware.
Whilst the FSA (for example) was busy looking at individual institutions, no-one noticed how hugely dangerous this inter-relation was (except the institutions themselves and they didn't actually care as it wasn't their own money they were gambling ... even to the point where Goldman Sachs Group sold $40bn of securities (containing sub-prime mortgages) [u:wmsomba6to its own clients[/u:wmsomba6 whilst, at the same time betting on a huge drop in the value of those securities. So, basically THEY KNEW they were selling turds ... to clients who paid them and trusted them).
Even the credit-rating agencies were giving this stuff top ratings.
But, I'm forgetting that this was obviously Gordon Brown's fault.



Of course, the Conservatives criticised him at that time for not [u:wmsomba6loosening[/uThe responsibility to act in the best interest of the economy by using interest rates to control the demand for lending...


Yeah, the average house price in the UK doubling in less than 3 years really was the fault of Lehmann Bros & nothing to do with the lenders de-regulated by Gordon Brown & the failure of the Chancellor to make sure interest rates rose to dampen down borrowing demand.

You know, that simple economic theory of supply & demand, so simple even Gordon couldn't follow it. Or his mate Ed.

But...but...but he did absolutely nothing wrong during his time as either Chancellor or PM.



These McBride revelations show just exactly who the nasty party really is.

Back on topic, the spare room subsidy is such a sound policy, even Ed M can't say he'll scrap it.

Can't make any decisions until we see the books. But we can spend the bankers levy ten times over, while we dream up a coherent, real life policy.

Keep those flags waving boys, only another 18 months and you can get out there with the clipboards and your "charlies uncle couldn't be d so he sent me" routine again ...

That's rich coming from an expert in battery-licking and shower water drinking

Don't you post about disliking propaganda every five minutes? Then you post that....

I'm told it's a different poster, I on the otherhand am not sure.

You know the thing about age and wisdom ?

The ability to differentiate between spoof and serious propaganda is one of the things that comes with the package, it must be like waiting for christmas for you.