Is the BBC Avoiding Critical Topics Like U.K Bankruptcy?

Wookster

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

In what way is putting people who disagree with you on ignore you "talking things through sensibly?"

Some people have proven themselves to be disinterested in having a rational discussion. Really2, StevieJ, Chucky and Dithering Dad are firmly in that camp, hence better that they are ignored than I waste my time reading their posts.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Wookster - I question your definition of "rational". I could throw the same thing at you going off some of the half-baked "facts" that have been deployed, as I am sure you feel about some of the stuff being posted by me and others.

So why not stay and debate them? Putting people who disagree with you on ignore is the usenet equivalent of becoming a Daily Mail reader - you only hear what you want to hear, and what you want to hear is what you already know.

chrisweb

chucky wrote: »

for a country with a very low home ownership vs rental ownership - tell me why they are having to bail out their own banks?

and there was me thinking the house price issue was the cause of all of this...

Germany bank leveraging was hugely high. Check out the german banks in this table.
http://www.webtvhub.com/bankrupt-britain/
Apaarently a 60:1 average!
It was about 10:1 in U.S
UK's somwehere in between but not sure exactly where.

That big leveraging will apparently multiply profits in the boom, but multiply losses in the bust.

Still given Germany's previous big surplus, lower annual Govt deficit, lower individual debt levels, better net trade position and more productive economy plays in their favor. But their banking system looks undoubtedly worse than ours based on the leveraging.

chrisweb

chucky wrote: »

it's usually the guys who are suffereing from Shadenfreude who are the ones claiming that Britain is bankrupt.

I break your theory as I'm doing pretty well. But I wouldn't really call myself a doomsayer - I just consider all options rather than convincing myself there's only one possible route.

Really2

chrisweb wrote: »

Germany bank leveraging was hugely high. Check out the german banks in this table.
http://www.webtvhub.com/bankrupt-britain/
Apaarently a 60:1 average!
It was about 10:1 in U.S
UK's somwehere in between but not sure exactly where.

That big leveraging will apparently multiply profits in the boom, but multiply losses in the bust.

Still given Germany's previous big surplus, lower annual Govt deficit, lower individual debt levels, better net trade position and more productive economy plays in their favor. But their banking system looks undoubtedly worse than ours based on the leveraging.

So I take your name is Chris Tew and you wrote the article.:rolleyes: (Do you get paid for each time you post a link to it or something)
Does that mean because you have a link to your own article which is your opinion you are right?

Next time don't leave your name on the article and your username.;)

Wookster

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Wookster - I question your definition of "rational". I could throw the same thing at you going off some of the half-baked "facts" that have been deployed, as I am sure you feel about some of the stuff being posted by me and others.

So why not stay and debate them? Putting people who disagree with you on ignore is the usenet equivalent of becoming a Daily Mail reader - you only hear what you want to hear, and what you want to hear is what you already know.

If all someone is doing is telling me to ditch this user account and go back to another one then I'd rather not waste time reading that, and that accusation is not one I am willing to spend time debating as it is untrue.

Of course I'd rather chat with people with differing viewpoints (otherwise its boring) but not if its going to boil down to "go away and come back as !!!!!!".

Wookster

Rochdale, just to prove my point, what worth is there in any sort of discussion with this sort of post?

NONE.

Who cares who wrote the article, !!!!!! does it matter if you can have a sensible discussion.

This totally demonstrates why Really2 is on my ignore list.

Really2 wrote: »

So I take your name is Chris Tew and you wrote the article.:rolleyes:
Does that mean because you have a link to your own article which is your opinion you are right?

Next time don't leave your name on the article and your username.;)

StevieJ

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Wookster - I question your definition of "rational". I could throw the same thing at you going off some of the half-baked "facts" that have been deployed, as I am sure you feel about some of the stuff being posted by me and others.

So why not stay and debate them? Putting people who disagree with you on ignore is the usenet equivalent of becoming a Daily Mail reader - you only hear what you want to hear, and what you want to hear is what you already know.

He wants reinforcement, not unusual on here

chrisweb

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

And of course the other point about the rules the ONS uses is that bank debts get added to the public deficit. Bank assets - now owned by the public - do not.

So, take every single penny owed by RBS et al and every single penny loaned to them. Then assume that every one of the debts they comprise is utterly worthless and will be defaulted on at a 100% rate. Then ignore all the assets owned by the bank and set aside the contractual agreement where they have to repay government loans with interest.

Then - and only then - do you reach a £1.5tn figure. In the real world bank debts do not default en masse (Northern Rock's default rate was 0.4% in the quarter after being nationalised), bank assets actually are public property, and loans get repaid.

This is a very good point but it is the short term liabilities that concerns me. The banks still have big debts unfolding recently, and possibly more to come, and in the meantime the government has a big debt to deal with.

Really2

Wookster wrote: »

Rochdale, just to prove my point, what worth is there in any sort of discussion with this sort of post?

NONE.

Who cares who wrote the article, !!!!!! does it matter if you can have a sensible discussion.

This totally demonstrates why Really2 is on my ignore list.

Again another post by you while I am on ignore(you read all my posts).:rolleyes:

His name is ChrisWeb and the article is an article written someone on a site anyone can write on (by the look of it) by a Chris Tew. It ain't rocket science who else uses that site for infomation on the economy?

Who is Chris Tew then? should we not know about him?

If the same guy who wrote the article is the same guy who is using the article to back up the argument it as a massive influence on the discussion!