The 10 people most reponsible for the recession

The_White_Horse

they missed out the main man - the uber lefty - Bill Clinton.

It was his administration, that in the name of "fairness" and all thing lefty, forced the banks to start lending mortgages to people with NO WAY of paying it back.

More lefty myopia. anyway, the result was that clever banks thought "f**k me, we are exposed here, better create some securities and sell these toxic debts on".

Hence where we are today. The whole thing, as per usual, is a lefty failure.

GooeyBlob

exil wrote: »

Haven't the Tories been saying for years that the only reason we were having a boom is because Labour were following Tory policies? What exactly would they have done differently?

Increased incentives to save. Tax-free savings would have been more generous (Gordon has systematically run these down over many years), there would not have been such a collapse in the savings ratio, and banks would have had more capital. That in itself would not have saved the very badly-run banks such as NR, but would have prevented the difficulties faced by a few others.

The Tories would not have instructed the MPC to ignore rampant house price inflation when setting rates, and I don't believe it's something the Lib Dems would have done either. That reckless act encouraged yet more irresponsible debt.

The debt burden has been unwieldy for some time, and the government has been implementing measures to make it easier to get into debt, and also get out out of it, for a long time. UK Insolvencies smashed through the 100,000-per-year barrier a few years ago, and economists had been warning about the massive debt burden for a very long time.

I also think both opposition parties would have had a tighter grip on public expenditure too, and would not have run up such large government debts during the boom. We certainly wouldn't be facing the worst recession had the economy been in different hands for the last 7 or 8 years.

wigglebeena

michaels wrote: »

I would change the order - Greenspan at the top for the famous Greenspan put and our own GB second - after all the whole FSA BoE regulation fiasco was wet up by Mr Brown. I guess in theory Mr Bush was responsible for Mr Greenspan but the sad thing is Mr Bush seems to pathetic to blame for the actions of his underlings.

That's how he gets away with all the !!!!!! he pulls - who wants to hold a retard responsible however much they f*** up?

Dylanwing

Seems a bit unreasonable to have your house taken because your Dad did some ill-advised things.

I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek. It was aimed at stopping them transferring assets, or like the filthy Maxwell offspring, claiming they had no money or assets and eligible for legal aid(Whilst pleading that Daddy made them do it!). Then again, when Banks re-possess, the whole family, icluding kids suffer.......

bo_drinker

They should all be brought before the beak and then shot, and if no one wants to pull the trigger give me the gun. These idiots are causing misery for thousands and walking scott free. People go to prison for a lot less. Where's that gun.

fc123

To add to the main list, here are the men responsible for my own, micro recession.
http://threadneedle.fundsource.fundworks.com/links/ukpt.pdf

In pushing up my rent to give their investors more and more yield, they will take me down. They are talking up the quality of their tenants....but the motors people sell Mercedes and a lot of the top tenants seem to based in the North or NE.

I don't fully understand the graph....perhaps someone can explain it better to me...but I do understand a line going downwards.

Rochdale_Pioneers

GooeyBlob wrote: »

I also think both opposition parties would have had a tighter grip on public expenditure too, and would not have run up such large government debts during the boom.

Still telling this lie? Large government debts that went DOWN? Do I have to point you to the figures again or are you going to shut up with this nonsense?

icefall

What a great article - seems to be all about the people who help cause the downturn - yet funnily enough no one sees that and they still get to keep the bonuses etc...

Sir Fred joined RBS in 2000 and promptly embarked on a spending spree, acquiring 26 banks in seven years for more than £35 billion. These included NatWest and stakes in America and the Bank of China. In 2006, its share price stood at £13. But at the close of trading on January 28, RBS shares were trading at a near-worthless 15.9p.
In 2000, after the takeover of NatWest, RBS’s board rewarded Sir with a £2.1 million annual salary, including a bonus of £814,000 for the takeover — more than any other UK bank chief received that year. It paled in comparison with his £2.86 million bonus in 2007. Three months ago, in October, Sir Fred left the bank under a dark cloud that has now mushroomed into a thunderstorm.

Says it all really.

CFC

We need to separate out the global part from our own recession.

If our banks had been properly regulated, and the FSA hadn't been a Boiyz Club, and Gordon Brown hadn't spent all the money he could get his mitts on, and then more via PFI, the American toxic loans wouldn't have pulled down our banks and we wouldn't have been in the dwang. We are currently the country worst placed to ride this out.

Anyone who recalls the 70's can foresee what we have coming, maybe even worse.

So - for us, yes, Gordon Brown has caused it.

SGE1

The_White_Horse wrote: »

they missed out the main man - the uber lefty - Bill Clinton.

It was his administration, that in the name of "fairness" and all thing lefty, forced the banks to start lending mortgages to people with NO WAY of paying it back.

More lefty myopia. anyway, the result was that clever banks thought "f**k me, we are exposed here, better create some securities and sell these toxic debts on".

Hence where we are today. The whole thing, as per usual, is a lefty failure.

Oh my.

You're possibly the most delusional person ever to have posted here.