A bit of economic panic and ...

[Gonzo]

Same London boy who needs to shift the 911 Turbo quick:

http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/717544.htm

Oh Dear. That bonus didn't materialise did it?

Far be it from me to burst the bubble of anyone who has got rich in the last decade on the back of rising property values, but, a quick google shows that Mr Bullerwell is a big-time "Buy-to-let" magnate, not a city-boy.

[Diver]

Far be it from me to burst the bubble of anyone who has got rich in the last decade on the back of rising property values, but, a quick google shows that Mr Bullerwell is a big-time "Buy-to-let" magnate, not a city-boy.

Buy to let with a hefty mortgage on each property magnate

[ace00]

No one does:

"......every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. .."

Bit dated though, what is it Adam Smith?
I would say that today the domestic is not preferred over the foreign.
Also there is the institutional weakness of the drive to profit. Basically, IBs know there's a bubble but they can't not buy into it because if they do they lose relative profitability and go under. So the conglomeration of IB & regular banks could be a good thing, but I have no trust in politicians so..........
But yes, overall, go capitalism!

[sasguru]

Bit dated though, what is it Adam Smith?
I would say that today the domestic is not preferred over the foreign.
Also there is the institutional weakness of the drive to profit. Basically, IBs know there's a bubble but they can't not buy into it because if they do they lose relative profitability and go under. So the conglomeration of IB & regular banks could be a good thing, but I have no trust in politicians so..........
But yes, overall, go capitalism!

Yes it is Adam Smith. My point here is "the invisible hand" which eventually guides capital to more productive places without top down intervention. A fundamental point that is lost on people who would have rules.
Short selling for example is not to blame, it merely hastens the messages of the market.

[DieScum]

Bets post I've ever read on here.

There is going to be lots of hang wringing and backwards looking legislation. The bust will go on causing carnage and then there will be recovery and in the future boom again. And bust and recovery...

Now is the time to keep the cashflow coming and look to invest... not maybe right now this minute... but soon.

[Ruprect]

Isn't this more about Gordon trying to control the invisible elbow? Shame he doesn't know his @rse from it

[M_B]

Nothing fundamental has happened, the markets have regulated themselves as they always do and decided who should go and who should stay. Its a complex and beautiful system that simplistic deterministic cretins don't understand.
So for now all the useless monkeys will gibber that they were right all along yadda yadda blah blah, while the system will sort itself out and carry on much as it's always been.

I admit I am no economic guru, but my understanding is that in regulating itself the market came to the verge of collapse but was prevented from doing so by the state.

Is my understanding wrong (I admit it may be, so this is a genuine question) ? If so then fair enough, if not then should we not investigate how to prevent this happening again so that the taxpayer is not involved in future ?

[AlfredJPruffock]

I admit I am no economic guru, but my understanding is that in regulating itself the market came to the verge of collapse but was prevented from doing so by the state.

Is my understanding wrong (I admit it may be, so this is a genuine question) ? If so then fair enough, if not then should we not investigate how to prevent this happening again so that the taxpayer is not involved in future ?

Whether its shoring up reckless Casino Capitalism or War - its allways the taxpayer who takes the hit.

Thats what they pay their taxes for.

[Bob Dalek]

Yes it is Adam Smith. My point here is "the invisible hand" which eventually guides capital to more productive places without top down intervention. A fundamental point that is lost on people who would have rules.
Short selling for example is not to blame, it merely hastens the messages of the market.

And tempts f--ks to wreck banks using the (unbelievable, just unbelievable) "The whisper on the street is..." grapevine that underpins the Majestic Trading Floors of Spiv Britain, the Land Fit for Toerags.

[DodgyAgent]

Yes it is Adam Smith. My point here is "the invisible hand" which eventually guides capital to more productive places without top down intervention. A fundamental point that is lost on people who would have rules.
Short selling for example is not to blame, it merely hastens the messages of the market.

And I always thought that you were no more than a short arsed jerk