They got greedy, yes. They also didn't understand the risks they were taking. Some did and warned about it but in general these banks didn't realise how much they were exposed to bad debt until it was too late. That isn't 'conspiracy' it is just a big **** up.
76 people made 41% of donations to political parties
- Thread starter CREATIVE!11
- Start date
Associate
Many people disagree with that, myself included. Am heading off to bed but it was fun debating it with you.
Some of the people who disagree can be seen here, and while hardly definitive, is a good film which deals with a lot of what is being discussed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzrBurlJUNk
Yes there are lots of films/articles related to this, some of them deal with bad things that happened and bad or incompetent people.
However pointing out things like that trailer for a movie which again looks at instances like the goldman sachs case doesn't contradict the view that these banks in general didn't understand the risks they were taking. If they did then they wouldn't have been so exposed and ended up suffering such huge loses in the first place. It is a pretty basic point but it ought to be obvious.
Some people who's firms did bet against the mortgage market, like John Paulson, ended up making billions. But these were a small number of hedge fund managers and even they didn't necessarily predict the crisis itself (or at least not one so large, they'd be lying if they did) but rather would have benefited from house prices stalling/falling a bit... a market correction etc..
and who was on the other side of Paulson's trades... oh yeah a bunch of banks, why would they be selling if they already knew? They just felt like giving away billions to him? Tis incompetence mostly rather than conspiracy.
However pointing out things like that trailer for a movie which again looks at instances like the goldman sachs case doesn't contradict the view that these banks in general didn't understand the risks they were taking. If they did then they wouldn't have been so exposed and ended up suffering such huge loses in the first place. It is a pretty basic point but it ought to be obvious.
Some people who's firms did bet against the mortgage market, like John Paulson, ended up making billions. But these were a small number of hedge fund managers and even they didn't necessarily predict the crisis itself (or at least not one so large, they'd be lying if they did) but rather would have benefited from house prices stalling/falling a bit... a market correction etc..
and who was on the other side of Paulson's trades... oh yeah a bunch of banks, why would they be selling if they already knew? They just felt like giving away billions to him? Tis incompetence mostly rather than conspiracy.
Last edited:
Any banker who didn't know that the whole shebang would collapse would have to have been an idiot. It was obvious enough to those of us that take a cursory interest in economics.
It was unsustainable. As soon as enough bad debt got rolled up it was going to go pop. Mass defaulting in the sub-prime markets was happening years before banks started to go bust.
It was unsustainable. As soon as enough bad debt got rolled up it was going to go pop. Mass defaulting in the sub-prime markets was happening years before banks started to go bust.
Will be interesting to see what happens to Greece next month.
yes. Of course.
Well I guess everyone is an expert in hindsight, it was so obvious yet so many highly paid bankers put themselves out of work, pretty much destroyed the credit markets and brought down a few institutions... And only a few people in hedge funds actually managed to profit spectacularly by betting against this debt.
This is true, they only accept donations from "ethical" businesses.
https://www.greenparty.org.uk/donate/ethical-partnerships/guidelines.html
The simple fact is that there is no downside to financial institutions taking on too much risk. If they take massive, irresponsible, endemic risks such as they did running up to 2007/2008 era, they will not be allowed to fail.
The banks take all the upside of risks they take, the public take the downside. That's the way the system is rigged and it will take a shake-up of epic proportions, an economic paradigm shift, for that situation to change.
The banks take all the upside of risks they take, the public take the downside. That's the way the system is rigged and it will take a shake-up of epic proportions, an economic paradigm shift, for that situation to change.
Soldato
Excuse me? It's Labour's fault and not the crazy sub-prime mortgage lending?
Pull the other one.
David Cameron has insinuated this so many times that many people think it's true. I wonder how those people explain the simultaneous crash in Iceland, Europe, and the USA. Blame it on Labour as well probably.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 7,760
In what way exactly? What would you have instead? Publicly funded political parties via taxation? Because thats what John Prescott wants and I don't suppose he's alone. We get their endless drivel rammed down our throats and you want them to bleed us dry as well? If a few individuals want to throw their money away on these wasters let them. Rather them than me.
The people want balance. Nothing more nothing less, due to our antiquated political 2 party system there will always be a extreme. The history of Labour was a party for the working class now the working class has moved to the middle class there is just a token gesture from current labour for the poor. On the flip side the Conservatives are only interested in one thing and that is keeping those who vote for them pockets filled with gold. They are backed by people with significant amounts of money and there only aim is to ensure they get more and more and be dammed anyone who gets in there way.
We need to stop having all our politicians coming from Oxford and Cambridge for starters.
We need to stop having all our politicians coming from Oxford and Cambridge for starters.
Soldato
The general public feel like they shouldn't have to pay for a political party campaigns. While see where they are coming from, it leads to wealthy people and organisations donating (which above a certain level have to be made public) to parts which fund there campaigns. This ofc will mean there agendas get looked at first for the most part.
The only solution (My preferred option) would be to have only public money fund a political party's campaigns. Which ofc the general public would be in a uproar about.
Or they could just do all of their campaigning via the BBC with all parties given an even platform, it's already funded, all the public really need to know about is each parties policies. The amount of mud slinging and marketing that goes on in politics (particularly by privately owned media outlets) is a disgrace, a few media outlets keep repeating the line "Can you imagine Ed Milliband running the country?" with a snigger and before you know it half the country is saying it without even knowing him.
Last edited:
every newspaper has their own agenda as well which is plain to see if you look at a few of their websites over the course of a week.
daily mail appear to like printing anti ukip stuff that seems to anger their readers in the comments
Soldato
What a load of utter rubbish. Look pre 2007/2008.
The 'Labour always mismanage the economy' line is fictional, it's make believe - the reality is there is no notable difference between the two parties regarding the economy since the 80's.
Last edited:
Soldato
What would that have to do with the Conservatives building up debt in 1991 (without the excuse of blaming the people in before due to being in power for ages).
The facts are it's a natural variance in public debt, slowly building & dropping over time - with the exception of the economic crisis.
I'm not saying that Labour didn't mess up, they did - all political parties do on the economy. What I'm challenging is the assertion that Labour caused the economic crash & that there is a significant different in performance between the two main parties.
There isn't.
Plenty of reasons exist to vote for one over the other (pending on personal preference) but some fictional view on economic mismanagement isn't one of them.
Last edited: