Poll: General election voting round 5 (final one)

[jimjamuk]

Was it? I hadn't realised... Yes it was a banking crisis. Caused by irresonsible lending of banks, and borrowing by house buyers, both of whom were under the illusion that the money was risk free. This risk-free, print all the cash mentality is exactly what Krugman now advocates, but on a soverign level.
Madness.
Yes, Greece was and is far worse. It was caused though by high government debts. High debts accumulated because the market thought all eurozone debt was essentially the same grade as each other, meaning Greece could borrow at far lower of a rate than their ability to re-pay would normally allow.

I could quite easily find figure for all of this, I think I have done so before in SC. but I'm at work, so I won't this time.

I agree with this

Just because this bloke got a nobel prize for something doesn't make him the financial messiah. Take multiple sources of info and form your own conclusions.

 

[do_ron_ron]

No, they're in the data/not excluded from the poll of polls data, they're just not represented in the graphs or included in the tabulated representation. It's not as though the poll of polls graphs or tabulated representation add up to 100% - they 'just' show the biggest five, then the 'others' or individually drawn on others would be so low in the graphs it'd be pointless.

The big 'five' this time round would appear to be Cons/Lab/SNP/Libdems/DUP.

 

[ubersonic]

So what do you want to do gas them?

They exist, they are English and part of our nations heritage leave them alone they cost nothing and are inconsequential to our nations finances.

If you want you can have a gold star for being better than them but unless you're Hitler it's not wirth the time or effort which would be far better spent on folk who want our help.

I think you need to step back and re-read the thread, you seem to have misunderstood or wrongly inferred something from my post O.o

 

[do_ron_ron]

Basically, Gordon Brown took some of the countries gold, and sold it off.

At the time Govts were saying we electronically transfer funds and holding gold was seen as passé.

After announcing in the house of commons that he was going to do it and tanking the price of gold /facepalm.

This was dumb as every speculator made a killing.

 

[scorza]

Was it? I hadn't realised... Yes it was a banking crisis. Caused by irresonsible lending of banks, and borrowing by house buyers, both of whom were under the illusion that the money was risk free.

Not sure there's any need for the rolleyes here.

AFAIK there's not much evidence of irresponsible lending by banks or borrowing by house buyers. The so-called sub-prime mortgages in the US had a risk-premium attached to them which did mean there was a bit more lending of this type than there perhaps should have been. The problem was the way that these mortgages were packaged up, combined with AAA mortgage debt by the banks so the risks were hidden and then sold on to other banks who didn't have a clue what they were buying. It meant when the music stopped no-one actually knew how much these assets were sub-prime and how much was AAA so the owners had to write off billions from their value. Some very ballsy investors made an absolute killing buying these assets at junk values during the crash and then finding that most of the mortgages got paid off as planned in the first place.

 

[thep02]

I think you need to step back and re-read the thread, you seem to have misunderstood or wrongly inferred something from my post O.o

No i think you don't like doleys and support benefit cuts to them because they're dirty unproductive scroungers.

I'm pointing out to you that cutting their benefits or forcing them to work is both stupid and costly.

 

[do_ron_ron]

Not sure there's any need for the rolleyes here.

AFAIK there's not much evidence of irresponsible lending by banks or borrowing by house buyers. The so-called sub-prime mortgages in the US had a risk-premium attached to them which did mean there was a bit more lending of this type than there perhaps should have been. The problem was the way that these mortgages were packaged up, combined with AAA mortgage debt by the banks so the risks were hidden and then sold on to other banks who didn't have a clue what they were buying. It meant when the music stopped no-one actually knew how much these assets were sub-prime and how much was AAA so the owners had to write off billions from their value. Some very ballsy investors made an absolute killing buying these assets at junk values during the crash and then finding that most of the mortgages got paid off as planned in the first place.

Plus the rating agencies gave them AAA clearance.

 

[D.P.]

So their polls are basically pants. To not include The SNP for example who are going to hold a huge sway on who gets in Govt. negates their poll.

I think you misread it.
They do poll the SNP, they just handle that data separately!

 

[D.P.]

I agree with this

Just because this bloke got a nobel prize for something doesn't make him the financial messiah. Take multiple sources of info and form your own conclusions.

Yep, and a majority of economist believe austerity in the UK has caused reduced growth and us billions.

 

[D.P.]

The big 'five' this time round would appear to be Cons/Lab/SNP/Libdems/DUP.

The SNP and DUP poll nationally less than the greens and UKIP, which is why they later 2 appear in polls of polls.

 

[ubersonic]

No i think you don't like doleys and support benefit cuts to them because they're dirty unproductive scroungers.

Well you're wrong, congratulations.

Back on topic:

AFAIK there's not much evidence of irresponsible lending by banks or borrowing by house buyers.

What about giving people a £110k+ mortgage to buy a house worth £100k and do it up, especially when a recession then causes them to become unable to pay you back and your forced to foreclose, on a house now worth £60-£70k. Then you have to ask the government to cover your losses because you're about to go out of business and millions of people have their savings with you.

I call that pretty irresponsible.

 

[scorza]

What about giving people a £110k+ mortgage to buy a house worth £100k and do it up, especially when a recession then causes them to become unable to pay you back and your forced to foreclose, on a house now worth £60-£70k. Then you have to ask the government to cover your losses because you're about to go out of business and millions of people have their savings with you.

I call that pretty irresponsible.

The 125% mortage? There's nothing inherently wrong with those -as you highlight, there's a plan in place to cover the extra 25% by adding value to the property so what's the problem? Well there's risk with any venture and yes I'm sure a lot of people found themselves in negative equity with these sort of mortgage. It's worth remembering though that Northern Rock didn't go insolvent because of people foreclosing on their 125% mortgages - they went insolvent because the banks stopped lending money to it (and to everyone else) and they couldn't cope with the loss of cashflow.

 

[jimjamuk]

Yep, and a majority of economist believe austerity in the UK has caused reduced growth and us billions.

Ah the hindsight economists.

but my point still stands Ok maybe it has caused reduce growth - but our plan has still cause more growth than anyone else and the austerity has cut into the deficit. I guess you could say one is inversely proportional to the other as one goes up the other goes down. The proportion we seem to have taken seems pretty good - yes we could have had a bit more growth maybe but at the expense of reducing our borrowing rate, and eberyone knows what you borrow you have to pay back with interest

 

[TheBiznes]

It seems there's only one real option: Conservative.

+1

 

[Freddie1980]

Milliband ruled out a formal coalition, he didn't rule out any other kind of deal, such as a vote of confidence to block the Tories.

He has actually, last Sunday he issued a press statement clearing stating there would be no deal between Labour and the SNP. I wouldn't worry if your in favour of a pact as I made a comment to my Dad, 'Yes I'm sure that will remain a promise for all of 5 minutes when the SNP dangle the keys to number 10 in front of Ed's face.'

 

[joeyjojo]

You really have to question the sanity of any economisist that states this. It is EXACTLY the type of financial thinking that led to the 2008 banking crisis.

I can only imagine you misunderstood the point being made here. I imagine (having not read the article yet) that the point being made is that the central bank will always act as a lender of last resort (LOLR) for the government, s.t. it can never "run out of money".

Incidentally this is related to the reason Greece had a much worse time than us - at the time the European Central Bank wasn't a LOLR (this changed in 2012).

 

[ubersonic]

I wouldn't worry if your in favour of a pact as I made a comment to my Dad, 'Yes I'm sure that will remain a promise for all of 5 minutes when the SNP dangle the keys to number 10 in front of Ed's face.'

In all honesty I would expect him to turn his back on said keys, accepting them would guarantee he was voted out in 2020 and cause his party potentially irreparable damage south of the boarder. Refusing them would put him in an even stronger position in the 2020 election and five more years of Cameron would reduce the Torys standing further.

 

[Outcast]

Apologies if this has already been posted

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...nts/original/1430314352/HIVPDF.pdf?1430314352

PDF

 

[Judgeneo]

Just like people who make the mistake of comparing household budgets to government budgets, you are comparing bank finances to those of nations with their own currencies. They are not the same.

Krugman isn't saying 'print all the cash', 'borrow everything', he is simply suggesting (with evidence) that austerity leads to lower growth. He says we shouldn't be slashing government spending right now whilst the economy is still fragile, and that the risks of higher government spending have been overstated.

The quote I posted says directly that governments such as the UK and the US can never run out of money, so yes "print all the cash" is almost exactly what he is proposing.

I also never once compared houshold financing to nation state financing. I simply stated that all borrowing comes with an associated risk. Different types of borrowing, and borrowing by different insitutions, simply having differnt risks.

Some risks materialise. Risks become issues. Many issues become crisises.

 

[StriderX]

In all honesty I would expect him to turn his back on said keys, accepting them would guarantee he was voted out in 2020 and cause his party potentially irreparable damage south of the boarder. Refusing them would put him in an even stronger position in the 2020 election and five more years of Cameron would reduce the Torys standing further.

How exactly, the Cons will highly likely need upwards of 3 parties to even get a majority...

It wont survive, pure and simple.