Reply to: Let the free market rip!

[Doggy Styles]

Well get a 75% mortgage while you still can and blow it. What will you spend it on?

A nice Christmas present for Gordon Brown.

[BrilloPad]

And only after she's dead.

Saves all that tedious moaning...

[BrilloPad]

I'm close to paying off my mortgage after years of hard work. I'm beginning to wish I hadn't bothered.

Well get a 75% mortgage while you still can and blow it. What will you spend it on?

[Doggy Styles]

I'm close to paying off my mortgage after years of hard work. I'm beginning to wish I hadn't bothered.

[ace00]

No you're the cretin in this case. Like all the New Lab idiots you want the status quo to resume ("return to 2007 levels of lending" my arse) - you don't have the wit or intelligence to realise that the system is broken.
What is needed is new thinking - the banks should fail and then be nationalised temporarily until we figure out a way of solving the big problem:

WE ARE LIVING BEYOND OUR MEANS.

I modify my original statement somewhat, though, in that I don't think savers should be penalised.

Well 1st I'm a tory voter.
2nd, the system (capitalism) is not broken. It continues to part fools from their money.
3rd agree, we are living through a global rebalancing that will take UK economy to it's deserved position in the World, equivalence with Italy.

[TimberWolf]

What is needed is new thinking - the banks should fail and then be nationalised temporarily until we figure out a way of solving the big problem:

Well it would be a cheap way of buying banks, assuming debts are repaid by borrowers eventually. And we could flog them off again once the dust settles. Boomed.

I still favour savers losing their deposits and borrowers debts being wiped clean though

[sasguru]

Mein Gott what a bunch of retarded flipwits (except ATW). Like I do for my simple colleagues let me provide a nice list with small words:

1. If you cancel debts & savers it is not balanced, the debtors gain the savers loss.
2. If you let the banks collapse there will be no lending therefore recovery will be impossible.

And for the only people stupider than sas, the politicians, do this:

1. Directly lend to small business / startups ("let a thousand flowers bloom" policy).
2. Pay me for 3-10.

No you're the cretin in this case. Like all the New Lab idiots you want the status quo to resume ("return to 2007 levels of lending" my arse) - you don't have the wit or intelligence to realise that the system is broken.
What is needed is new thinking - the banks should fail and then be nationalised temporarily until we figure out a way of solving the big problem:

WE ARE LIVING BEYOND OUR MEANS.

I modify my original statement somewhat, though, in that I don't think savers should be penalised.

[BrilloPad]

Mein Gott what a bunch of retarded flipwits (except ATW). Like I do for my simple colleagues let me provide a nice list with small words:

1. If you cancel debts & savers it is not balanced, the debtors gain the savers loss.
2. If you let the banks collapse there will be no lending therefore recovery will be impossible.

And for the only people stupider than sas, the politicians, do this:

1. Directly lend to small business / startups ("let a thousand flowers bloom" policy).
2. Pay me for 3-10.

If you can't let the banks collapse then they need to be nationalised. Else it is a one-way bet : they can do as they please.

Letting Lehmans go down the pan makes conditions tough now : but in future years we will be better off for it. Let the free market decide.

[ace00]

Mein Gott what a bunch of retarded f*ckwits (except ATW). Like I do for my simple colleagues let me provide a nice list with small words:

1. If you cancel debts & savers it is not balanced, the debtors gain the savers loss.
2. If you let the banks collapse there will be no lending therefore recovery will be impossible.

And for the only people stupider than sas, the politicians, do this:

1. Directly lend to small business / startups ("let a thousand flowers bloom" policy).
2. Pay me for 3-10.

[bobhope]

You make the crashing of the banks sound like a bad thing. Surely it would be really great? (especially for borrowers, under my system)

Maybe you need to look up the meaning of the phrase "moral hazard"

[AtW]

sasguru for chancellor. all 3 of you if necessary.....

Me included?

I'll make sassy my tea lady - his talents should be just enough for that.

[BrilloPad]

I have been doing a lot of thinking recently and have come to conclusion that all these bailouts etc. are merely postponing the inevitable. To really and truly compete again we need national regeneration.
In order to do this we must stop subsidising failing and weak banks and companies and let them go to the wall. The banks will only do it again if they get bailed out.
So rather than piling billions into them, let them all fail. Use the money to pay for the unemployment benefits for the people who will be made unemployed. So the CEO will get the same as the cleaner.
Next, put into place an attractive tax regime for business and inward investment - low taxes, low regulation etc.
A little suffering will be good for the national soul after years of softness - after all where's the Blitz spirit?

sasguru for chancellor. all 3 of you if necessary.....

[AtW]

You make the crashing of the banks sound like a bad thing. Surely it would be really great?

Crashing of banks is terrible because it will kill commerce dead - we depend too much on them.

Thankfully current crisis now went past banks - this was the main danger actually, now it became economical rather than financial crisis, but at least bank runs were beaten - that was hard to achieve and I think a lot of people don't realise how lucky is everyone that we seem to be past this stage.

I think in the future maybe banks need to be split into 2 groups - one is only allowed to run transactions (to keep commerce alive) and charge fees for that, and the other will be investment banks - mixing up the two should be verbotten and any banks that causes their bank to meltdown will have to jump out of the tallest building in the country. This way savers could still lose their money but the system won't collapse.

[TimberWolf]

No - savers should be protected 100% in failed banks because if they are not, then other savers in banks that have not fallen yet would withdraw their money and crash the whole system.

People who got in debt on the other hand present no such problem, in fact in this case they need to be forced to pay for their actions because otherwise you'd get mass defaults (if penalties low or zero) and the system will crash again.

So, in effect the protection of the system is actually symmetric - only it happens on extreme ends of each scale.

You make the crashing of the banks sound like a bad thing. Surely it would be really great? (especially for borrowers, under my system)

[AtW]

So when rich savers risk losing their money, they want to be protected by socialism.

No - savers should be protected 100% in failed banks because if they are not, then other savers in banks that have not fallen yet would withdraw their money and crash the whole system.

People who got in debt on the other hand present no such problem, in fact in this case they need to be forced to pay for their actions because otherwise you'd get mass defaults (if penalties low or zero) and the system will crash again.

So, in effect the protection of the system is actually symmetric - only it happens on extreme ends of each scale.