Excellent article about house bubbles in todays Guardian

Sir_Humphrey

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

Blaming bankers for this mess is a bit like blaming a three year old for eating too much chocolate on Easter Sunday. Bankers are greedy and irresponsible. I disapprove of their actions, but they were entirely predictable.

The govt knew irresponsible lending was going in and chose to ignore it for the short-term political capital associated with an unsustainable boom. They are the real villains, the !!!!less parents of the b*****d offspring that is our banking sector.

I am not claiming that the government are not partly responsible, or the banks fully responsible.

But at the end of the day, the banks operated under free will. They could have acted otherwise. To claim otherwise is bad faith (in Sartre's sense of the phrase).

Blaming the government alone is like blaming the police for crime. Yes, the police should reduce crime, but it is not actually their fault (unless it is a policeman breaking the law!)

JayScottGreenspan

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

I am not claiming that the government are not partly responsible, or the banks fully responsible.

But at the end of the day, the banks operated under free will. They could have acted otherwise. To claim otherwise is bad faith (in Sartre's sense of the phrase).

Blaming the government alone is like blaming the police for crime. Yes, the police should reduce crime, but it is not actually their fault (unless it is a policeman breaking the law!)

Fair enough.

I think my parent/child analogy breaks down in a similar way to the police/criminal one in that the parent doesn't benefit as a result of the misdemeanours of the child. Of course, the govt were quite proud of the bankers and all the money coming from the city before the whole thing collapsed.

worldwheeler

Want to see something interesting? Want to know what forces have shaped the bubble and then this crash? Watch these:-
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936&ei=VvD0SN3HDZCQqQKD2czfDg&q=money+masters&hl=en

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197&hl=en

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=vuDbfClZ6e4

Then watch this:- http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5420753830426590918


Stick with them(they are quit long) and YOU will be able to judge who the true culprits are.

Realy

andys15 wrote: »

how much as a percentage is the sub prime market. I thought it was less than 5%, but sure to be corrrected

Hi listened to some americn guy on the radio the other day.
Sub-prime was classed as loaning 120+% against a property.

UK Exposure less than 8% of all mortgages
USA Exposure 30% of all mortgages.

Anyone who believes we have been more reckless than the US is wrong.

andys15

thanks

they wont reply, beacause whenever anyone comes back with anything positive about anthing they usually either 1 ignore it, or 2 swear at you

mewbie_2

andys15 wrote: »

they wont reply, beacause whenever anyone comes back with anything positive about anthing they usually either 1 ignore it, or 2 swear at you

or 3. Spend 10 seconds on Google, find link which disproves comments on UK sub prime, spend another 40 seconds waking up MSE (always a bit slow), and paste link.

Here..
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=axWmsMHJDjiQ&refer=home

Realy

mewbie wrote: »

or 3. Spend 10 seconds on Google, find link which disproves comments on UK sub prime, spend another 40 seconds waking up MSE (always a bit slow), and paste link.

Here..
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=axWmsMHJDjiQ&refer=home

Thats an 07 article but intresting, the "official line" for subprime is 120+% mortgage and I belive the UK figure was correct It was a debate on five live sometime last week.

If house prices drop 20% on a 100% mortgage you could argue it had fallen to subprime. But the loan itself would not have been clased as a subprime loan.
But you could see in America a 20% drop was a 40% loss in a lot of cases for their banks.

andys15

mewbie wrote: »

or 3. Spend 10 seconds on Google, find link which disproves comments on UK sub prime, spend another 40 seconds waking up MSE (always a bit slow), and paste link.

Here..
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=axWmsMHJDjiQ&refer=home

we can all google
In the UK, five percent of the mortgage market is sub-prime, but those with impaired credit histories might be marginal bank risks, such as students or those who have a perspective of future employment that would enable them to pay back their bank loans.
taken from those germans who also appear to be in the poo
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3668963,00.html

kennyboy66_2

mewbie wrote: »

or 3. Spend 10 seconds on Google, find link which disproves comments on UK sub prime, spend another 40 seconds waking up MSE (always a bit slow), and paste link.

Or 3, find an article, preferably 15 months old which is someones opinion and try to pass it off as fact.

"The sub prime crisis may be nastier in the UK because;

1) The average house price value will be £302k in 2012:rotfl:
2) UK interest rates are rising ":rotfl:

I don't rate your standard of proof that highly. Did you think to read the article before posting the link?

StevieJ

Realy wrote: »

Hi listened to some americn guy on the radio the other day.
Sub-prime was classed as loaning 120+% against a property.

UK Exposure less than 8% of all mortgages
USA Exposure 30% of all mortgages.

Anyone who believes we have been more reckless than the US is wrong.

I really cannot fathom why they don't understand this point.