I agree it is the duty of Government to stop it happening but think it is a bit choice the Conservatives criticisng Labour for not doing so when everybody knows had they acted, they would have accused them vociferously of stifling eneterprise. But to claim that they are not guilty because everybody is greedy is a bit generous. I think there are degrees of guilt. When people protested that bonusses were too great, they were defended by bankers as being necessary to encourage wealth creation. Now that theory has been shot out of the water - they are reverting back to the pre crash justifications for massive bonuses. They have power and all political parties have to stop targeting each other and agree to target them. Anybody who believes we wouldn't be in a similar mess if the Conservatives had been in power is living in cloud cuckoo land.
[cite]Posted By: MuttleyCAFC[/cite]It was definitely the bankers to blame. Not all of them but too many of them.
An element of truth in that ... risk assessment became too haphazard and long-term risk did not match short-term reward ... what was missing to a large extent was accountability. However, just to balance things, a contrary view from the Independent:
Case for the prosecution
Greed, symbolised by vast bonuses for taking unacceptable risks with other people's money and futures, destroyed the livelihoods of many far removed from Wall Street and the City of London. Even as the suffering continues and they have had to be rescued by the taxpayer, they carry on with lavish lifestyles and business as usual. Now they won't even lend to small businesses.
Case for the defence
Bankers are no more genetically greedy than, say, politicians, journalists or vets. The world was content when they were generating wealth and paying huge amounts in tax. They are not being bloody-minded now, all they're doing is trying to build up their capital, just as the public demand, but to do that they have to lend less. Besides, lots of householders and firms want to save, not borrow.
Verdict: Not guilty
A shock verdict, but the duty of government is to prevent people misbehaving. Like speeding drivers, we needed to stop bankers doing themselves and others harm when they followed their natural instructs.
I am no fan of bankers and their often obscene bonuses but governments (not just in the UK) conveniently choose to forget that they put pressure on banks to make loans and credit "more accessible" to those who would normally not be considered.
"More accessible" ="greater risk" and, in simple terms, failures from greater risk caused the US sub prime crisis which in turn buggered up our banks who were looking for greater returns (and thus bonuses) by investing in these riskier markets.
The key point though is that government started it by cajoling banks to become more accessible and thus take greater risk.
The US sub prime risks were not encouraged by governments - they were always known to be risky but before it all blew up - they were a license to print money. They were Bentleys and swimming pools today rather than strife tomorrow. They were also hidden within safer loans when sold to the banks who didn't scrutinise too hard as they didn't believe the disaster that occured would happen -through smugness and a mistaken belief in capitalism.
Thanks Len for pointing out that it was/is a global problem. The Tories are surely even more keen on a free market economy than Labour, so what would they have done differently?
With regards to what went on during the election, none of the parties wanted to talk in detail about how they'd tackle the deficit because they all knew that any cuts they made were going to be unpopular. I think they all were well aware of the extent of the problem.
[cite]Posted By: JorgeCosta[/cite][It's amazing how the banking industry has pulled this off. With the collusion of both Labour and Conservative/Liberal and much of the press, they have been exonerated of causing the deficit. It was all apparently caused by the public sector and those receiving benefits . I'm not against reform, but it's a bit rich (no pun intended) that the slate has been wiped clean for the banks - if we hadn't bailed them out, we would not need to make such savage cuts.
This government and the previous one were/are happy to subsidise rich bankers withOURtax money. And what do we get in return?
A very decent profit. Our (the Government's) shares in the banks are now worth substantially more than the costs of the bail out. The reason we need to make cuts is because public spending had risen so much after 2001. We also spent very large sums on stimulus programmes to prevent the recession becoming a depression. You can still blame the banks though - they played a major part in the credit boom and therefore helped cause the recession.
Taking benefits away from a household earning £45k and keeping paying it to one earning £83K is unfair. All other insults and conclusions on here are wrong and unjust.
[cite]Posted By: MuttleyCAFC[/cite]The US sub prime risks were not encouraged by governments-.
Yes they were. From the Wiki entry on Fanny Mae
In 1999, Fannie Mae came under pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income borrowers by increasing the ratios of their loan portfolios in distressed inner city areas designated in the CRA of 1977.[10] Because of the increased ratio requirements, institutions in the primary mortgage market pressed Fannie Mae to ease credit requirements on the mortgages it was willing to purchase, enabling them to make loans to subprime borrowers at interest rates higher than conventional loans. Shareholders also pressured Fannie Mae to maintain its record profits.[10]
In 2000, because of a re-assessment of the housing market by HUD, anti-predatory lending rules were put into place that disallowed risky, high-cost loans from being credited toward affordable housing goals. In 2004, these rules were dropped and high-risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals.[11]
The intent was that Fannie Mae's enforcement of the underwriting standards they maintained for standard conforming mortgages would also provide safe and stable means of lending to buyers who did not have prime credit. As Daniel Mudd, then President and CEO of Fannie Mae, testified in 2007, instead the agency's underwriting requirements drove business into the arms of the private mortgage industry who marketed aggressive products without regard to future consequences: "We also set conservative underwriting standards for loans we finance to ensure the homebuyers can afford their loans over the long term. We sought to bring the standards we apply to the prime space to the subprime market with our industry partners primarily to expand our services to underserved families.
I don't think Wiki is the font of all wisdom - just a person's view/bias.
Maybe the whole concept of Child benefit is unfair seeing as it has always been paid irrespective of wealth. What we have now is definitely unfair but to different people.
[cite]Posted By: Saga Lout[/cite]Thanks Len for pointing out that it was/is a global problem. The Tories are surely even more keen on a free market economy than Labour, so what would they have done differently?
With regards to what went on during the election, none of the parties wanted to talk in detail about how they'd tackle the deficit because they all knew that any cuts they made were going to be unpopular. I think they all were well aware of the extent of the problem.
I don't think the Tories under "Cast Iron" Dave would have done too much different, despite the rhetoric being employed as part of justifying this child benefit fiasco, as this was a global crisis and,as EU members wanting to be seen as "good Europeans," the EU effectively told us what we could and couldn't do. The rhetoric of course was something like "after consultation with our European partners." Politician speak for getting our instructions from our real government.
However I digress and Southend didn't want this to become political so I'll shut up now!
[cite]Posted By: RalphMilnesgut[/cite]Taking benefits away from a household earning £45k and keeping paying it to one earning £83K is unfair. All other insults and conclusions on here are wrong and unjust.
All that implementing the policy change in this way will do is muller the 'traditional' family (if such a thing exists any more) - hammering the stay at home mums who will now be FORCED into part time work just to cover the costs of the childminder.
Why would stay at home Mums need to pay a child minder?
They don't. What I'm saying is they won't BE stay-at-home Mums if removing child benefit tips them over the edge of not being able to afford mortgage repayments. A family of four, where the father works and earns just over 44k whilst his wife stays at home in their three-bedroom terraced house which costs them an absolutely outrageous amount in mortgage repayments because of the housing (ahem) 'boom' of the last decade will no longer be able to survive. The woman will HAVE to go back to work simply to make ends meet - working three days a week in essence for 'free' (paying off the childminder) before they are in 'credit' and start earning whatever they need to make up the shortfall. Doesn't take a genius to figure this out.
"Rest assured that they do have to sell it to the public, otherwise their MPs (Libs as well as Cons) may not vote for it. It will have to be in a future finance bill."
Sadly this simply isn't true of today's politics, once elected, nothing is 'sold' to the public. You vote for your MP to make decision on your behalf, they do not have to consult you.
And sadly once an MP is elected they will follow the whips and do what they are told. The rare occasions when there is a back-bench revolt, it only happens when enough MPs know enough other MPs will do the same and they will not be left to face the music. This is why back bench MPS complain a lot but vote against the government rarely.
The Whips in parliament have ALL the power. If there is a three line whip telling both Tory and Lib Dem MPs that they WILL back the government on it then what a particular members constituents think of it matters very little. If you alone go against a three line whip, then the Whips not only have the power to destroy your political career, they will generally wreck your personal life and your future career prospects.
"Where do the childless couples in your argument think the food industry workers/care workers/health professionals who will feed & look after them etc in the future come from? Surely the progression of any society is based upon people having children. I can't see why anyone would be against the encouragement & promotion of child rearing!"
Why do parents think the world needs them to produce off-spring. The world is massively over populated. If the whole of Britain stopped baring children then we would survive. Immigration would increase, the gap between rich and poo might reduce and we might stand a better chance of feeding the world equally.
Plus the biggest threat to global warming is population expansion.
So please don't think for a second that you having children is doing the world a favour.
considering this is a coalition with the lib dems I would suggest these policies do need to be sold as the dems want their seats after the next election. Were it a huge tory or lab majority it might be as you say.. however this is the 'new politics' iniit..
bringing 2 or more well brought up, educated, contributors into the world has to be a good thing in my view, whether we all get that lucky is another question, however we are not responsible for world population issues by a long chalk.
[cite]Posted By: RalphMilnesGut[/cite]Taking benefits away from a household earning £45k and keeping paying it to one earning £83K is unfair. All other insults and conclusions on here are wrong and unjust.
To paraphrase the words of Paul Weller "the weak get crushed as the rich grow richer"
At the risk of being controversial -there is a an argument that you would want to encourage some people to have more Children and some less. If any families are discouraged from having Children because of this development, I would suggest it will probably be the ones we want to encourage to have more Children. The ones who set good examples, care about their Childrens' development and will be more likely to nuture contributing versions of themselves!!
Whilst I see you point Muttley, surely anyone who wants to have a child simply because of the tax incentives will automatically fall into the category of person who should not be having children?
Lets face it, people have children because they want them, and don't have them because they don't want them (or sadly can't have them).
Tax breaks, affordability and the benefits to mankind don't really come into play.
Yes probably - although the more responsible with jobs will often make considerations based on income/ ability to support where as others might see it as a means to get more benefits or a bigger house off the state.
All that implementing the policy change in this way will do is muller the 'traditional' family (if such a thing exists any more) - hammering the stay at home mums who will now be FORCED into part time work just to cover the costs of the childminder.
Why would stay at home Mums need to pay a child minder?
They don't. What I'm saying is they won't BE stay-at-home Mums if removing child benefit tips them over the edge of not being able to afford mortgage repayments. A family of four, where the father works and earns just over 44k whilst his wife stays at home in their three-bedroom terraced house which costs them an absolutely outrageous amount in mortgage repayments because of the housing (ahem) 'boom' of the last decade will no longer be able to survive. The woman will HAVE to go back to work simply to make ends meet - working three days a week in essence for 'free' (paying off the childminder) before they are in 'credit' and start earning whatever they need to make up the shortfall. Doesn't take a genius to figure this out.
Easy tiger, i only asked.
LOL - apologies if it came across as a dig - in hindsight that last remark certainly made it appear so!
The arguments on here about 'bankers' are ridiculous as they, almost without exception, do not draw a distinction between the different TYPES of bankers in question. I know that all banking is linked, but what people need to be pissed off about isn't the day-to-day banking activities that they're exposed to (credit, debit, savings etc) but the culture and system behind the scenes that underpins it all. Most people know how the fractional reserve system works (only a certain percentage of the money in a system at any one time is 'real') - and, for the most part, when the ratio was about 10/1, the system worked reasonably well. The more the system has been stressed in the last thirty years or so, the more it's creaked - people moan about the inequities of the system in the UK - if you understand how the global economy affects the rest of the world, you'd realise just how petty all our squabbling about it is. FR is now hopelessly broken - driven by the greed of corporations and stockholders over the general 'good' of the capitalist system - and sooner or later, everything has to come crashing down.
Communism has been proven not to work, due to human nature. Free-Market Capitalism is going the same way, for the same reason. Whatever system arises next, it isn't going to be pretty - but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there HAS to be some change of system, because you can't just keep lumping debt on future generations... and that's all the perpetuation of the FR system will do. Sound like a conspiracry theory? Do your own research about it - there's plenty of stuff out there - even though most of the economic literature about FR is incredibly dull and boring.
Changes to tax credits, child benefit, income support etc are papering over the cracks.
changes to tax, benefits and VAT (+ interest rates and gov't expenditure) are the only things a government can do to impact the bigger picture and individual behaviour. Today's IT suggests it shouldn't be too dificult to build a system based around household income but IT and government do not mix so the gov't plays it simple by putting in crude changes like this + possibly reducing the age limit to 16
It's not papering over the cracks for London as it is the history and the future which have made London such a great city. The cracks are getting way too big in the regions and this is where this gov't's policies might really hurt and where the Lib Dems may be tempted to cut and run
As for bankers losing us all money - last I heard the bank shares owned by the gov't have turned a profit so I expect they will be sold before the next election to help clear the national debts
I think the problem is, you can either have a fair benefits system, or you can have one that's cheap to administer. The government's going for the latter, but trying to pretend it's actually the former.
Bankers, bankers, bankers!
Oh shut up!
99.9% of you lot know nothing about banking or bankers. Obscene bonuses, funded by the public blah blah.....
To make money in banking takes a lot of hard work and commitment.
[cite]Posted By: Chirpy Red[/cite]Bankers, bankers, bankers!
Oh shut up!
99.9% of you lot know nothing about banking or bankers. Obscene bonuses, funded by the public blah blah.....
To make money in banking takes a lot of hard work and commitment.
[cite]Posted By: Chirpy Red[/cite]Bankers, bankers, bankers!
Oh shut up!
99.9% of you lot know nothing about banking or bankers. Obscene bonuses, funded by the public blah blah.....
To make money in banking takes a lot of hard work and commitment.
my dad worked as a bank manager in marketing for hsbc formerly midland bank (the listening bank) until taking early retirement in 1994 at age of 54 due to having a breakdown due to the constant trimming of staff to the bare bones. his final wage was around the 20k mark. not a low wage then but nothing special. his pension is around £800 a month, again not to be sniffed at but i ask any of you out there if you could pay all your bills and run a car on that. still has to pay full council tax. oh and he lives in a 1 bed flat. he's certainly no sob story but like has been said not all bankers are in the same boat. his usual annual bonus was around £500 so nothing to get excited about. still, he has his health back now and like me he's still got charlton to brighten up his week.
Comments
I am no fan of bankers and their often obscene bonuses but governments (not just in the UK) conveniently choose to forget that they put pressure on banks to make loans and credit "more accessible" to those who would normally not be considered.
"More accessible" ="greater risk" and, in simple terms, failures from greater risk caused the US sub prime crisis which in turn buggered up our banks who were looking for greater returns (and thus bonuses) by investing in these riskier markets.
The key point though is that government started it by cajoling banks to become more accessible and thus take greater risk.
With regards to what went on during the election, none of the parties wanted to talk in detail about how they'd tackle the deficit because they all knew that any cuts they made were going to be unpopular. I think they all were well aware of the extent of the problem.
A very decent profit. Our (the Government's) shares in the banks are now worth substantially more than the costs of the bail out. The reason we need to make cuts is because public spending had risen so much after 2001. We also spent very large sums on stimulus programmes to prevent the recession becoming a depression. You can still blame the banks though - they played a major part in the credit boom and therefore helped cause the recession.
Yes they were. From the Wiki entry on Fanny Mae
In 1999, Fannie Mae came under pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income borrowers by increasing the ratios of their loan portfolios in distressed inner city areas designated in the CRA of 1977.[10] Because of the increased ratio requirements, institutions in the primary mortgage market pressed Fannie Mae to ease credit requirements on the mortgages it was willing to purchase, enabling them to make loans to subprime borrowers at interest rates higher than conventional loans. Shareholders also pressured Fannie Mae to maintain its record profits.[10]
In 2000, because of a re-assessment of the housing market by HUD, anti-predatory lending rules were put into place that disallowed risky, high-cost loans from being credited toward affordable housing goals. In 2004, these rules were dropped and high-risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals.[11]
The intent was that Fannie Mae's enforcement of the underwriting standards they maintained for standard conforming mortgages would also provide safe and stable means of lending to buyers who did not have prime credit. As Daniel Mudd, then President and CEO of Fannie Mae, testified in 2007, instead the agency's underwriting requirements drove business into the arms of the private mortgage industry who marketed aggressive products without regard to future consequences: "We also set conservative underwriting standards for loans we finance to ensure the homebuyers can afford their loans over the long term. We sought to bring the standards we apply to the prime space to the subprime market with our industry partners primarily to expand our services to underserved families.
Maybe the whole concept of Child benefit is unfair seeing as it has always been paid irrespective of wealth. What we have now is definitely unfair but to different people.
I don't think the Tories under "Cast Iron" Dave would have done too much different, despite the rhetoric being employed as part of justifying this child benefit fiasco, as this was a global crisis and,as EU members wanting to be seen as "good Europeans," the EU effectively told us what we could and couldn't do. The rhetoric of course was something like "after consultation with our European partners." Politician speak for getting our instructions from our real government.
However I digress and Southend didn't want this to become political so I'll shut up now!
Quite.
Easy tiger, i only asked.
Sadly this simply isn't true of today's politics, once elected, nothing is 'sold' to the public. You vote for your MP to make decision on your behalf, they do not have to consult you.
And sadly once an MP is elected they will follow the whips and do what they are told. The rare occasions when there is a back-bench revolt, it only happens when enough MPs know enough other MPs will do the same and they will not be left to face the music. This is why back bench MPS complain a lot but vote against the government rarely.
The Whips in parliament have ALL the power. If there is a three line whip telling both Tory and Lib Dem MPs that they WILL back the government on it then what a particular members constituents think of it matters very little.
If you alone go against a three line whip, then the Whips not only have the power to destroy your political career, they will generally wreck your personal life and your future career prospects.
Most MP like their comfy lives too much to risk.
Why do parents think the world needs them to produce off-spring. The world is massively over populated. If the whole of Britain stopped baring children then we would survive. Immigration would increase, the gap between rich and poo might reduce and we might stand a better chance of feeding the world equally.
Plus the biggest threat to global warming is population expansion.
So please don't think for a second that you having children is doing the world a favour.
bringing 2 or more well brought up, educated, contributors into the world has to be a good thing in my view, whether we all get that lucky is another question, however we are not responsible for world population issues by a long chalk.
To paraphrase the words of Paul Weller "the weak get crushed as the rich grow richer"
Lets face it, people have children because they want them, and don't have them because they don't want them (or sadly can't have them).
Tax breaks, affordability and the benefits to mankind don't really come into play.
The arguments on here about 'bankers' are ridiculous as they, almost without exception, do not draw a distinction between the different TYPES of bankers in question. I know that all banking is linked, but what people need to be pissed off about isn't the day-to-day banking activities that they're exposed to (credit, debit, savings etc) but the culture and system behind the scenes that underpins it all. Most people know how the fractional reserve system works (only a certain percentage of the money in a system at any one time is 'real') - and, for the most part, when the ratio was about 10/1, the system worked reasonably well. The more the system has been stressed in the last thirty years or so, the more it's creaked - people moan about the inequities of the system in the UK - if you understand how the global economy affects the rest of the world, you'd realise just how petty all our squabbling about it is. FR is now hopelessly broken - driven by the greed of corporations and stockholders over the general 'good' of the capitalist system - and sooner or later, everything has to come crashing down.
Communism has been proven not to work, due to human nature. Free-Market Capitalism is going the same way, for the same reason. Whatever system arises next, it isn't going to be pretty - but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there HAS to be some change of system, because you can't just keep lumping debt on future generations... and that's all the perpetuation of the FR system will do. Sound like a conspiracry theory? Do your own research about it - there's plenty of stuff out there - even though most of the economic literature about FR is incredibly dull and boring.
Changes to tax credits, child benefit, income support etc are papering over the cracks.
It's not papering over the cracks for London as it is the history and the future which have made London such a great city. The cracks are getting way too big in the regions and this is where this gov't's policies might really hurt and where the Lib Dems may be tempted to cut and run
As for bankers losing us all money - last I heard the bank shares owned by the gov't have turned a profit so I expect they will be sold before the next election to help clear the national debts
Oh shut up!
99.9% of you lot know nothing about banking or bankers. Obscene bonuses, funded by the public blah blah.....
To make money in banking takes a lot of hard work and commitment.
We're just the Estate Agents of the 21C.
Hence the rhyming slang ;-)
Estate Agent/Pagent? Doesn't really work does it?