Possibly a daft question

[expat]

I always believed that in most situations there were winners and losers.

It ain't necessarily so.

Some games are zero-sum, but few bits of Real Life are.

Many situations have a part that is seen, and a part that is not seen. You could say that American subprime borrowers (i.e. Ninjas: No Income, No Job, No Assets) who got to live at least for a while in houses that they couldn't afford, have won something. American lenders who sold worthless "Asset-Backed" Commercial Paper have won. Other banks have won by having a competitor trashed for them. The Government expects to win by giving its baby special deals, then selling it off again at a price much better than what they cynically reduced NR to before confiscating it.

Lots of winners!

[Tensai]

Hate me, I converted my equity into cash...

Hmmm... a tad smug perhaps....

[Moscow Mule]

Hate me, I converted my equity into cash...

[Churchill]

merci.
It's important to know who to hate

Just my take on things.

[EternalOptimist]

Everyone from the cockney barrow boys who sold the mythical financial instruments in the first place and upwards.

merci.
It's important to know who to hate

[Churchill]

ok , so you are giving me more losers


now give me the winners. The last time I got trickle down, it was thirty years ago in the Gwladys street end, down the back of my leg

Everyone from the cockney barrow boys who sold the mythical financial instruments in the first place and upwards.

[threaded]

ok , so you are giving me more losers


now give me the winners. The last time I got trickle down, it was thirty years ago in the Gwladys street end, down the back of my leg

It's just another Ponsi scheme, and the winners are those that put the money in, in the first place.

[EternalOptimist]

Some of the trickle down went there, but not that much in the great scheme of things.

Most of the money never really existed, and so has ceased to exist in its none existance so to speak.

The vast bulk of this non-existant money has gone to increase the numbers shown as the bottom line of the people who put the money in, in the first place. The disparity between the numbers and the actual value will be corrected later when they transfer real money into these accounts from your savings, pensions etc. via a bout of inflation.

HTH

ok , so you are giving me more losers


now give me the winners. The last time I got trickle down, it was thirty years ago in the Gwladys street end, down the back of my leg

[threaded]

If you think about it, where has all the money lent gone?

It has gone to home owners who sold a bedsit above a kebab shop in Peckham and made enough money to retire to a 5 bed villa on the mediterranean seafront.

Some of the trickle down went there, but not that much in the great scheme of things.

Most of the money never really existed, and so has ceased to exist in its none existance so to speak.

The vast bulk of this non-existant money has gone to increase the numbers shown as the bottom line of the people who put the money in, in the first place. The disparity between the numbers and the actual value will be corrected later when they transfer real money into these accounts from your savings, pensions etc. via a bout of inflation.

HTH

[DimPrawn]

I always believed that in most situations there were winners and losers

so if the NR shareholders have lost out, if the NR borrowers might lose out, if the taxpayer might lose out, my question is, who stands to gain from all this ?(apart from that applegarth character, who would have been paid anyway)

If you think about it, where has all the money lent gone?

It has gone to home owners who sold a bedsit above a kebab shop in Peckham and made enough money to retire to a 5 bed villa on the mediterranean seafront.

[threaded]

The people at the top with the money in the first place. It's called the trickle down effect, they trickle a little money down, and later they get a big wedge back in return.

HTH

[EternalOptimist]

I always believed that in most situations there were winners and losers

so if the NR shareholders have lost out, if the NR borrowers might lose out, if the taxpayer might lose out, my question is, who stands to gain from all this ?(apart from that applegarth character, who would have been paid anyway)