The 10 people most reponsible for the recession

SGE1

GooeyBlob wrote: »

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.

Rubbish.

Your argument implies that people weren't saving because interest rates were too low. Cack.

The Government doesn't "instruct" the MPC to do anything. Stop feeding this ridiculous conspiracy theory. And if you're intent on finding conspiracy somewhere, please find one that's more interesting, because frankly, this is getting dull.

And what measures, pray tell, has the Government been implementing to make getting into debt easier?

Your last point probably stands - but then we'd have crap public services, and we'd have entered the recession with a far higher base level of unemployment. That hardly constitutes a better context to enter recession.

Wookster

The Guardian did an article on this a while ago, I thought it was a fair bit more comprehensive (odd as the Times usually does excellent business related news).

The article is here.

moggylover

Generali wrote: »

We're out on the yacht on The Harbour again on Tuesday too.

Still no job though. :-(

Stop rubbing it in! We actually have buckets of SNOW! - well everyone else does, we only have a dusting around where I live!

As to the job: it will come along at some stage. I hope you are coping in the interim - and that your wife is feeling better and happier now that she is home and amongst her family.

moggylover

Generali wrote: »

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

But Generali, across this Country and others - there are many kids whose families will loose their small businesses, their jobs and their homes because of these despicable people: why should their kids continue to live in luxury with their lives hardly affected whilst other people pay for their excessive greed and lack of restraint?

moggylover

GooeyBlob wrote: »

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.

I don't think any of them actually had a clue how to deal with a whole new set of problems. I also think that the increased dependence on a new breed of "economists" who were nothing but "glorified accountants" with little knowledge or understanding of the social implications of their policies meant that they were ill equipped to find a way of dealing with it.

This makes interesting reading:

http://www.radstats.org.uk/no079/webster.htm

Rather long - but gives a very different picture to the reasons for our crash and burn.

fc123

moggylover wrote: »

But Generali, across this Country and others - there are many kids whose families will loose their small businesses, their jobs and their homes because of these despicable people: why should their kids continue to live in luxury with their lives hardly affected whilst other people pay for their excessive greed and lack of restraint?

But isn't that how its always been? I remember watching a war film (not really my type of thing) called Gallipoli, many years ago.

We kind of kid ourselves that we have a certain amount of freedom and independence....and 'With some application, we can be whoever we want to be''.
For the odd few, it may be true, but the rest of us are locked into a system that we can only try to wriggle around inside of. Wriggle around enough, and you feel that you are actually achieveing something...but you are just wriggling around, wearing yourself out...and then you are too tired to notice the bigger picture.

When you do, it's too late.

Generali

moggylover wrote: »

But Generali, across this Country and others - there are many kids whose families will loose their small businesses, their jobs and their homes because of these despicable people: why should their kids continue to live in luxury with their lives hardly affected whilst other people pay for their excessive greed and lack of restraint?

Because the children did nothing wrong. Where would you stop? Do you take the houses from the Great Grandchildren of the Slave Traders? What about the Estates of the old families that came over with the Normans?

If not, why not? It's not like the Credit Crunch is uniquely awful. Loads of people have done bad stuff down the years.

Bf109

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.

I would agree that Greenspan shoud be the first against the wall when the revolution comes, closely followed by Brown.

I dont think people realise how much global impact Brown had. London was the first or second financial centre of the world so the failures by Brown, his Treasury, his FSA, his BoE, has had a massive impact on the entire global financial system.

Come to think of it, shooting is too good for him. A length of rope, a butcher's hook, and a lampost should do nicely.

sabretoothtigger

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.

Clinton repealed the 1930's law that was put in place after last time

moggylover

Generali wrote: »

Because the children did nothing wrong. Where would you stop? Do you take the houses from the Great Grandchildren of the Slave Traders? What about the Estates of the old families that came over with the Normans?

If not, why not? It's not like the Credit Crunch is uniquely awful. Loads of people have done bad stuff down the years.

Please could you name just one that has done ANYTHING remotely as bad as these people and who has gone unpunished in any way, shape or form?

One could equally say that the children of those being made redundant this time, or those that were made redundant 20 years ago never to find work again, or those whose parents businesses are being wrecked by the fall-out from the KNOWING activity of this filth did nothing wrong! However, they are not wealthy enough to avoid suffering: the dishonest and immoral sho*te that caused all this always knew that they would not loose anything by gambling with OUR money and always knew that they were doing wrong. Why should their children not suffer, but those of the less wealthy can? What makes their children so special? Money? The old boys network?

These men (and the woman) are guilty of downright reprehensible behaviour. If they had screwed up so badly in any other walk of life then they would have suffered for it: but they are vilely and disgustingly wealthy and thus they will probably evade the law.

Please do not ask my heart to bleed for them: I would put them against a wall and shoot them, repeatedly, in places that would hurt and bleed, but to ensure a long, very slow death! MY heart bleeds for all those innocent of anything but working hard to build a modest life for themselves and their families who will suffer for the actions of these and the other amoral and desperately corrupt scions of the financial World.

I seldom refer to anyone as scum and I seldom rant. However, these people are the deepest and darkest filth and are deserving of no sympathy or tolerance from any of us.