What Caused Our Economic Crisis?

Yeah, but Perseus, that last post is of yours just cheap rubbish. On the other hand, my post , in response to your last denigration of the opposition leader who is not responsible for our particular problems here, merely points out that Brown has brought into a position of power, to run our business, a man discredited for corruption, and another ex-communist at that, and a couple of big city naughty performers, including one of the hedge-fund managers you accuse the Tories of adopting. And he has given Mandelson a peerage in the House of Lords, because he is unelected, just like the other two culprits! It was a serious comment. I stand by it, whereas I would be ashamed to have put up the Private Eye in support of a political view-point.

I am indeed the rational one here, and I have no political allegience. I am simply putting the blame fairly and squarely where it belongs. You yourself said as much when I reminded you of the fact that this is a Socialist government, even tho' they got the city to dance to their tune for the past 10 years.

Mandelson himself has been a big critic of Brown's financial performance, from his eyrie in Brussels.

You can't have it both ways; you can't claim that our ex-Chancellor does not have bloody hands. You are the one following a dedicated agenda irrationally.

I am against the lot we have in power now, because of their record and performance, but I am not necessarily FOR any of the others.


This is the financial changing scenario we have now:-


1. The prevalence of the Anglo-American model of capitalism , prescribed by two stock exchanges and four universities, is probably no more; done to death now by the latest crisis.

(Roosevelt's plan lasted a good 40+ years.)


2. There is NO Socialist alternative whatsoever.


3. What we have is a developing Social-Capitalist sysrem. It is appearing at this very moment, already here it could be said.


Welcome to the new world order.
 
Last edited:
Del Boy said:
You can't have it both ways; you can't claim that our ex-Chancellor does not have bloody hands.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you keep thinking I approve of new Labour in any way, perhaps they are slightly less worse than the Tories politically, but not by much, and if they are all communists in disguise as you think they are, this means they have no principles whatsoever, only an interest in power. At least Thatcher had principles, they were just the wrong ones!

Del Boy said:
I am against the lot we have in power now, because of their record and performance, but I am not necessarily FOR any of the others.
Click to expand...

In which case we are almost identical so what are we arguing over? I have never voted for 'New' Labour or never would in its present form. However, what exactly do you propose, what political principle would you vote for? Do you agree with publically funded parties, if not where does the money come from? do you think any other party would have saved the UK from the global meltdown?
 
Hi Perseus - Yes, I agree, we have no reason to fall out on this one.
I claim I am an independent, and I am a strong believer in using my vote to get rid of incumbants who have shown themselves to be clearly untrustworthy.
That included the last Tory regime, (1997), which reminded me never to vote for them, and most certainly the current government. So you find me alien to it, period.

Firstly, thank you for putting me straight regarding your political position, I am clear now. For myself, I have only recordied here that a high number of our administration since 1997 were originally communists and fellow travellers. I named some only to show that I was being factual.

I have enjoyed your posts here and on global warming. I have to admit that currently i would use my vote to try to thwart what I consider the worst option. What I do dread is governments which are too powerful numerically, for example Maggie's terms and the current New Labour terms; such have free rein which is not good for the people between elections.

With publically funded parties, I would be concerned re. the cost to the public purse. Some control or limitations I would be interested to see. I have no objection to funds being raised as long as all is above board and in the public interest. I hate the 'selling ' of honours. In fact, I feel the time has come to do away with the honours system as it stands all together.

As far as the global crisis is concerned, please remember that both hedge-funds and even short-selling have been legitimate tools of the stock exchanges - the latter to prevent the artificial pumping up of share values; but at the same time I agree that the wide position has been caused by neglect and lack of control by the authorities of the systems put in position by governments. The latter have encouraged the banks to keep their rates low and sell, sell, sell, mortgages to pump up the housing market, which suited their purposes and papered over the cracks in their own financial programmes.

Would Cameron have done better? Well, would Al Gore have done better? Who knows? What we do know is what we know.

But I believe that even without the global problem, Gordon Brown had built his very own crisis as Chancellor; we are the most indebted country in Europe; just about everything he interfered with has turned to dust; he has sworn to us, until very recently, that we had no financial problems, that we were advantageously situated.
Even warnings from official financial bodies abroad were dismissed by him.

I will be watching very closely indeed over the next 18 months or so, and weighing carefully.

I don't think you and I will fall out over that, thank you for your last post. Having been made aware of where you stand, you will not find me misunderstanding the direction of your posts; I look forward to them , I have no problem with honest opinion.
 
Last edited:
MontyB said:
I think you have picked the wrong horse on this one because the ONLY solution is to throw money at it and lots of it, does this mean you shouldn't reform your monetary systems or punish those that screwed up no it doesn't but you can do that at any stage right now you need to concentrate on stopping the slide which needs to be done quickly so as to prevent the solution being too little too late.

As for what will happen next well my guess is that on Thursday the bill will be passed because there is no more political mileage to be gained by rejecting it and your politicians will wander off patting themselves on the back and claiming victory.

What would Reagan do?
Beats me but I am prepared to bet that it would involve saying "well" a lot.
Click to expand...

Monty I like you but respectfully disagree look at the stock market today! Good thing we pumped all that money in. I know people that have lost a lot of money I work with folks who depend on 401k's for retirement it sucks.

BTW WaWu update, they called last night and we made a ReFi deal I changed my 30 year to a 15 year my interest droped to 5.5 the only thing is my Mortgage went up about 300 a month however they split it so I pay half every two weeks.

This works great!
 
Topmaul said:
Monty I like you but respectfully disagree look at the stock market today! Good thing we pumped all that money in. I know people that have lost a lot of money I work with folks who depend on 401k's for retirement it sucks.
Click to expand...

Yes the market is still dropping but:
1) They havent spent anything yet.

2) The "Bailout" was never going to cure all the problems it was only ever going to stop a recession from becoming a depression.

3) The markets continuing decline is not an unexpected event, think of it as fighting an infection, just going to the pharmacy doesn't cure the problem you actually have to take the medicine and give it time to work.



BTW WaWu update, they called last night and we made a ReFi deal I changed my 30 year to a 15 year my interest droped to 5.5 the only thing is my Mortgage went up about 300 a month however they split it so I pay half every two weeks.

This works great!
Click to expand...

Sounds like in the long term this will work out better for you.
 
What good is a cure if it kills the patient?

Coupled with the right to succeed is the right to fail. Dead patient = government take over. The mass media has continues to paint doom and gloom I bought a lot of stock on Friday, there were super good deals out there. I also refinanced my house on last week. The economy is not in all that bad of shape. Shoot I had 20 telemarketers call me in the last few days. Now is the time to let market forces do what they do, all this is happening inspite of Goverment meddling not because of it.

I would have bought the stock and made other financial moves with or without the bailout (oops socialization). I do know folks that have lost thousands of dollars my losses were substancial but not devistating. I normally invest in the energy sector and always have because I understand it the best.
 
Last edited:
Topmaul said:
What good is a cure if it kills the patient?
Click to expand...

The patients life is not in danger unless you allow the flu to become pneumonia and then get complicated.

This cure is designed to prevent the flu becoming pneumonia.
 
I have recently heard of another physiological metaphor, it's no good treating parts of the ailing body without dealing with the whole sick corpus.

Institutions currently don't want to lend to one another because of the likelihood of default, this is what is driving the banks down and the economy with them . The British Treasury recently guaranteed £250 bn of lending between British Banks to cure this, but this won't work unless everyone does it since we are part of a global economy. Unless the G7 finance ministers come up with something by Sunday that is similar or better than this idea then we will see more of the same next week.
 
WRONG once more (oops let me modify I can only speak for here in the States) I have had a dozen calls yesterday wanting to refi my house. They are out and aggressive once more. Read my last post.

Don't drink the finance, politica, media hype Cool-Aid!

Market Forces will prevail in spite of politcal favors being called in by the financers! Those of us who think and make sound investments will be fine those who don't are in big trouble.

There is one on the phone right now Mortgage Relief Program! More Refi offers! My mortgage is in no danger of default yet they want to refi me with money intended for those dumb bastards who bought a home they could not afford. This makes financial sense to me but will not help those who it is intened for.

Get this take the governent Socialism Act of 2008 use the money to get good debt to improve the core business. Let some one else have the bad debt aggressivly market to responsible people get good dept and stick the government with the bad dept.

I think you guys should admitt your wrong and on the wrong side of this issue the finance companies got into this mess by being stupid and conned the governments of the western world go hand them trillions more and now they are back doing the exact same thing that got them in trouble. You people who think I am wrong are trusting these greedy bastards to do the right thing well news flash a cheata can't change his spots! Giving them trillions of dollars is not the answer.
 
Last edited:
Topmaul said:
WRONG once more (oops let me modify I can only speak for here in the States) I have had a dozen calls yesterday wanting to refi my house. They are out and aggressive once more. Read my last post.

Don't drink the finance, politica, media hype Cool-Aid!

Market Forces will prevail in spite of politcal favors being called in by the financers! Those of us who think and make sound investments will be fine those who don't are in big trouble.

There is one on the phone right now Mortgage Relief Program! More Refi offers! My mortgage is in no danger of default yet they want to refi me with money intended for those dumb bastards who bought a home they could not afford. This makes financial sense to me but will not help those who it is intened for.

Get this take the governent Socialism Act of 2008 use the money to get good debt to improve the core business. Let some one else have the bad debt aggressivly market to responsible people get good dept and stick the government with the bad dept.

I think you guys should admitt your wrong and on the wrong side of this issue the finance companies got into this mess by being stupid and conned the governments of the western world go hand them trillions more and now they are back doing the exact same thing that got them in trouble. You people who think I am wrong are trusting these greedy bastards to do the right thing well news flash a cheata can't change his spots! Giving them trillions of dollars is not the answer.
Click to expand...

I would NOT want them to get any more money of course. What is being proposed here is to underwrite potential defaults to raise confidence in borrowing. In return governments will get a stake in the banks and executive pay and perks will be limited (a condition).

Personally I think they should go the whole way, that is

government guarantee depositors money > let the share prices of the banks collapse > government buy them out at a ridiculous low level > sack most of the boards > replace them with a board responsible to the customers > force lending between banks since the governments own them. As soon as confidence returns and share prices rise government will have a fortune to sell in capital.

Your method non-intervention seems similar to the late 20s strategy which got us nowhere other than a depression. Ultimately if governments actually do their job and govern, and force banks to borrow and force state spending like Germany did in the 30s then there is no reason we can't get out of the mess. It is the political paradigm of non-intervention which will be our undoing. I ultimately blame all this mess on the Thatcher Reagan political philosophy of deregulation.
 
Last edited:
:cheers: Perseus,
We all have our opinions and I am betting on mine with my wallet, yes I have lost money in the stock market but there are some great buys out there right now companies who are worth far more than the stock is selling for.

I bet the market is up on Tuesday maybe 40 points or more would anyone care to bet some mil bucks on it? No sure how these mil bucks work.

I don't care where the bottom is for the general market I have seen some great prices on stock form good companies so I bought it.

The great depression had a lot of causes, I think government meddling can go too far.
 
Topmaul

I meant 'I would not want them to get any more money'. of course (changed this).

Don't think I would even bet Milbucks on the market at the moment. Dangerous business buying on value since classic valuations assume a) liquidity, b) rationality, but hope your right! Good luck with your real bucks.
 
I am beginning to think the market is nearing the end of the focused drops (banks and financial institutions) but I suspect there is still a general one to come as it corrects itself. My guess is that it will be worth looking into in a week or two.
 
Perseus, thanks remember fortune favors the bold! When it's time to take action I TAKE ACTION!

Guess you guys can say it now, stock markets all around the world are up! Who called that one? Yep me! I would have been raking in the Milbucks but it is early in the day I guess things could still go bad.

I made my move in the market in spite of government actions world wide not because of them. Markets are up in France, England, Germany, and Hong Kong http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/business/14markets.html I expect Wall Street to ralley as well today as well I have pre set my stocks to sell at set points if the ralley gets my stocks that high which I don't really expect they will automatically sell.

All you have to do is use your own logic, be bold (not stupid), and don't get greedy decide what you want for a stock before you buy it and get rid of it at the right time. For example OII is a 45 to 50 dollar stock but it's selling for less than 28 bucks you can get it and sell it at 40 bucks your safe and made 12 bucks a share. OII can reach 65 a share if you want to wait. Also OII can do things that not many others can do if anyone certenly not on the scale OII can do it. If the offshore oil exploitation happens OII will be a key player and I am positioned to capitilize on their success. I am holding out for 55 bucks on this one I can wait.

Stocks are not pets don't get attached. Don't follow the hurd be a lone hunter seek out stocks that are good for example some one we know bought a bunch of Delta Stock (that person's wife freaked out) when they were in the toilet then sold them and made a pile of money. If you run with the hurd you'll end up at the bottom of a clif some day.
 
Last edited:
in fact this economic crisis is very complicated and very diffecult to be understood.eventhough i have understood most of historical and current political and interrelated economic issues.

however i got one thing from this crisis that it shows to us how capitalisim is vulnerable and weak.so we have to adoubt the socialism .

socialism proved more than one time how it is a fair and ideal economic system again.

socialism:thumb::thumb::thumb::thumb::thumb:
 
Blackeagle, Socialism is no better than Capitalism regarding these matters. Can you tell me any socialist system that has stood the test of time? I don't know of any,... in fact I would say that the people in countries that have a socialist system are worse off economically than those in countries with Capitalist systems, all the time. In capitalist countries, we just have recessions and depressions when the b@stards in charge of the money get too greedy.

Socialism sounds great, but in reality it is subject to all the same failings as the capitalist system. The main difference seeming to be that the b@stards in charge of capitalist countries are smart enough to realise that you can not bleed the public purse completely dry, you must leave just enough to keep the taxpayers earning money for you to tax. Whereas in the case of the socialist system the b@stards in charge just keep throwing money at every social problem until the employers just move elsewhere and then there are no taxes to pay for all of their great plans.

I would be a Socialist in a heartbeat if I could see how to make it work in the long term, but unfortunately it just doesn't seem to work.
 
senojekips said:
I would be a Socialist in a heartbeat if I could see how to make it work in the long term, but unfortunately it just doesn't seem to work.
Click to expand...

I think that's the case for a lot of us. It doesn't work and that's usually the one that kills off socialism.
Capitalism is fundamentally right but of course we need control measures to make sure it doesn't become complete anarchy.
 
Both pure Socialism and Capitalism are flawed. They both have pitfalls. Most Americans equate Socialism to Communism but in fact they aren't remotely the same. Socialism is an economical model, communism is a political one. Unfortunatly socialism gets a bad rap due to mistaken association with communism.

The problem with pure capitalism is that it so greedy by nature, it will eventually collapse under the vast corruption and also that it encourages a wide chasm between rich and poor. While Socialism stymies economic growth due to its heavy-handed regulatory practices.

Therefore, the true answer between which is better is: somewhere in the middle. What we need is a system that encourages free enterprise but also a regulatory system that keeps the foxes away from henhouse, and also makes sure that so much is not controlled by so few.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top