We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Lets blame the bankers
Comments
-
MegaMiniMouse wrote: »If I went into a department store and ordered a 3-piece suite, would they deliver it unless they were sure that they would get their money?
Only if they were pretty sure. If it's on credit, then the checks would be on similar lines to those that bank lenders use, possibly slightly slacker as the sums involved are smaller. There is always an element of risk that a loan will default, whether it be for a house or a suite, which is why the interest rate on the loan is higher than the actual cost of lending the money. Both sorts of lender will assume that a percentage of loans will default and set their rates accordingly so that overall they don't lose out. However, some banks (not especially in the UK, actually) adopted a riskier approach and got burned enough to risk bringing the global system down with them. Others (eg the Icelandic banks) made wrong assumptions about their own ability to borrow (to lend on to consumers) and the cost of that. Suddenly their cheap source of funds dried up and they were hung out to dry.
Of course, it wouldn't have been a problem if consumers had only bought what they could afford instead of going as far into hock on the never-never as they could.
The media, as has been mentioned by another poster, is also responsible to a fair extent in my view. Northern Rock were not in serious trouble until the media claimed they were. That cause a rush of depositors (understandably) withdrawing their money. However, no bank holds enough cash to pay all depositors at once (*), hence NR couldn't cope.
(*) no responsible banks, that is. If they just lock everyone's cash away it's dead money. They have to use it to lend so they can earn interest from which they can pay the depositors' interest. If depositors don't get interest they won't put the money in in the first place, so the banks don't have anything to lend - etc., etc.0 -
I blame the greedy bankers and brown,the former for being plain wreckless and brown for sitting with his finger up his as@0
-
I blame some of the lenders for being reckless, some of the borrowers for being irresponsible, some of the media for instigating witch-hunts and sensationalist reports to sell their papers and Brown - just for being Brown, that was quite bad enough ;-)0
-
markharding557 wrote: »I blame the greedy bankers and brown,the former for being plain wreckless and brown for sitting with his finger up his as@
I think that the finger/s in the as/s were not G.B.'s, but those of the bankers
I seriously do not understand why there is such a reluctance on this site for posters to blame anyone but themselves for the misbehaviour of The Banks!
Are you all Bankers?
MMM0 -
I'm not a banker, but I do know, as I've been trying to explain, that you cannot blame just one party for the mess.0
-
I'm not a banker, but I do know, as I've been trying to explain, that you cannot blame just one party for the mess.
That's where we disagree...
I believe that the bankers are solely responsible
I think that national governments trusted them, just as their customers trusted them, to know how to conduct their businesses
MMM0 -
We'll just have to agree to disagree then.0
-
MegaMiniMouse wrote: »I think that the finger/s in the as/s were not G.B.'s, but those of the bankers
I seriously do not understand why there is such a reluctance on this site for posters to blame anyone but themselves for the misbehaviour of The Banks!
Are you all Bankers?
MMM
Probably Barclays
'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
HOUSE_PRICE_CRASH_GHOULS wrote: »Funny how no one blames the opposition parties for their blatant apathy.
As I mentioned on another thread they would have been up in arms if Brown had started interfering with how the banks are run.'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
the whole country would come to a standstill if this happened - it won't work, it's pointlessMegaMiniMouse wrote: »Instead of General Strikes and Civil Unrest, I would propose a strike against The Banks. We should all withhold our loan and mortgage repayments, until The Banks start to cough up some of the funds needed to ensure the continuation of the services to which we are all entitled
MMM0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.6K Spending & Discounts
- 247.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.6K Life & Family
- 262.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards