Northern Rock Even More Bust Than Before!

Jennifer_Jane

Yep, Blair and Clinton - I understand (ie this is a theory from a chap at work), that they are to blame because they saw and enjoyed the fruits without examining things further.

Jen
x

tomterm8

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Yep, Blair and Clinton - I understand (ie this is a theory from a chap at work), that they are to blame because they saw and enjoyed the fruits without examining things further.

Jen
x

Blaiming Clinton is like blaming Thatcher. You can do it as much as you like, but it just doesn't ring true. The republicans had more than enough time to undo anything they wanted that Clinton brought in.

1echidna

Generali wrote: »

In July 2008, the FSA allowed Northern Rock to include lower quality assets in it's reserves (so called Tier 2 assets). This has given the bank an unfair advantage and is skirting with the laws about illegal Government subsidies IMO.

Unfortunately, it has just lost a load more money - £500,000,000 - so has once again to call on you guys for money (again structured in such a way that means the Government can get around the rules). LINK

Why do you think an insolvent bank with it's headquarters in the centre of Labour's heartlands (Newcastle) is being kept afloat against any logic or common sense? The longer it's kept alive, the more money the taxpayer loses.

At gov't insistance it has forgone its banking principles and has become an arm of gov't policy to prop up housing market. Leniency on defaulting lenders helps keep distressed sales down but increases losses.

RobertoMoir

kennyboy66 wrote: »

I'm guessing you probably know that had it been wound down that those losses would have crystallised anyway.

I'm also assuming from previous posts that you would have liked to see those banks and building societies that were in trouble simply be allowed to fail with no recompense to either depositers or wholesale lenders.

Do you think this would really have been the best solution ?

If your arm has gangrene, sometimes the only real cure is to amputate, no matter how much you don't want to or inconvenient it may be to only have one arm afterwards.

It's one thing to give bridging loans to basically sound businesses and banks that have just been taken short by the recession and quite another to keep propping up unsound businesses no matter what.

Generali

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

I hadn't realised quite how "estimated" the figures were...

"Around 85 per cent of the latest estimate for Q1 2009 is based on data, the rest being modelled. This compares with 45 per cent when the estimate was first published in April."

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=192


I'm sure there must be some justifiable "judgement calls" to make over whether numbers fit in one scenario or another, and the cynic in me just can't stop wondering how convenient it was that the revision of Q2 2008 never got annouced until well after the recession was already official...

If you think about what GDP figures are and how they are put together then most of it will always have to be an estimate.

TBH, my belief is that the ONS do a good job in difficult circumstances. The main political interference is in telling them what to measure (eg CPI and the constant fiddling with what constituted being unemployed in the 1980s for example) rather than what answer they should come up with. My impression of statisticians as a group is that they are passionate about what they do and get very upset with anyone telling them to fiddle things or whatever.

That's why it's important to understand what is being measured - the figures are realiable I think but you need to know about what they are reliable!

Masomnia

RobertoMoir wrote: »

If your arm has gangrene, sometimes the only real cure is to amputate, no matter how much you don't want to or inconvenient it may be to only have one arm afterwards.

It's one thing to give bridging loans to basically sound businesses and banks that have just been taken short by the recession and quite another to keep propping up unsound businesses no matter what.

This raises problems.

Firstly, the other limbs stop doing their jobs, they won't take any risks in case they get gangrene too. So essential parts of the economy cease to function.

Secondly, the confidence in those limbs is just as important. People will start hacking them off, just in case they have gangrene, so even if there isn't a problem if there is no confidence the system collapses.

Thirdly, the gangrene doesn't just go away. It has to go somewhere, if no other limbs are strong enough to take it on, what happens then?

Wookster

The banks (including NR) needed to be saved. Anyone who doesn't think so is just simply kidding themselves as to the Armageddon that would have followed had they been allowed to fail.

Unfortunately for all of us, saving the banks means allowing them to rebuild their profit & loss and balance sheets by charging higher interest rates to recoup their losses. Because of political interference they haven't been allowed to do this, hence their continued support requirements from the taxpayer.

andygb

lemonjelly wrote: »

Wouldn't really disagree with you at all to be honest. Those 18-24 figures are going to get so much worse next month/quarter, as all the achool/college/university leavers will be signing on, as there is nothing out there for them.

Just thinking out loud here. As we have an ever increasing elderly population, and a young unemployed work force, would it not be a good idea, to build more care establishments. As the population increases, and the demands from the ageing population puts ever more stress on the health services, then shouldn't we be employing far more people in these areas, rather than constantly criticising public sector spending?
Sorry to go off topic ever so slightly (well a long way then;))

Generali

andygb wrote: »

Just thinking out loud here. As we have an ever increasing elderly population, and a young unemployed work force, would it not be a good idea, to build more care establishments. As the population increases, and the demands from the ageing population puts ever more stress on the health services, then shouldn't we be employing far more people in these areas, rather than constantly criticising public sector spending?
Sorry to go off topic ever so slightly (well a long way then;))

Why should services like this be provided by the state? Most people have long working lives - surely they could make their own provision.

lemonjelly

andygb wrote: »

Just thinking out loud here. As we have an ever increasing elderly population, and a young unemployed work force, would it not be a good idea, to build more care establishments. As the population increases, and the demands from the ageing population puts ever more stress on the health services, then shouldn't we be employing far more people in these areas, rather than constantly criticising public sector spending?
Sorry to go off topic ever so slightly (well a long way then;))

Nah. Make everybody work til they're 70 like Turner is now saying.

Plus we're more likely to need these "elders" as probation officers etc to deal with the asbo/chav/yoof element due to the fact that they're bored, got no prospects, out of work etc....

More seriously, how about having the elder generation involved in teaching/training the younger generation, perhaps on dying out skills, or other less mainstream subjects/vocations?