Rolling UK Economy Into The Shitbin Thread

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (595 of them)

CPI/RPI reflect real inflation right now.

-- Ed, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 16:40 (13 minutes ago)

what about m4?

laxalt, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 16:54 (eighteen years ago)

what's crazy to me is that the financial authorities, the govt and the mortgage lenders have

1) seen this coming for about two years
2) done fuck all about it
3) have no plans to do fuck all about it any time soon

Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 16:58 (eighteen years ago)

i mean, i know that is the subject of pretty much every opinion column about this ever, but still

Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 17:02 (eighteen years ago)

Why would they? To curtail things at the time would have been electorally unpopular. No elected govt has ever tried to curtail a boom. As for lenders, 1) were chasing market share, 2) huge bonuses for bringing in business at any cost, 3) protected to an extent because consumers still responsible for debt even after repossession - no jingle mail here, 4) knew they would be bailed out by govt as no serious bank can be allowed to fail

no one ever wants to know when the cash is rolling in, it will always be someone elses problem down the line

Plus Nulab has always been in thrall to the city

laxalt, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 17:02 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.boltdepot.com/images/Chrome/chrome-flat-washers.jpg

Tom D., Tuesday, 13 May 2008 17:04 (eighteen years ago)

Wrong image!

http://www.geocities.com/susanmhpublishersmarketplace/2007/litparkrocktheboat.jpg

Tom D., Tuesday, 13 May 2008 17:04 (eighteen years ago)

Also looking back to previous episodes, particularly pre-war, many of the smaller banks went under and ended up being picked up at basement rates by bigger institutions (esp in US, where the fed was basically created to facilitate this)

or to put it another way. jp morgan getting bear stearns for basically nothing, with help from the fed, which they part own

laxalt, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 17:05 (eighteen years ago)

<i>2) done fuck all about it </i>
This is all basic incentives: the banks had a fucked-up bonus system that rewarded people for behaving like this. And MPs have a massive incentive system for keeping house prices going up, as it gets them votes (witness the massacre right now). There was nobody else to prevent it apart from the people in the market, and that's not gonna happen unless they're too busy panic-buying petrol or something.

stet, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 17:08 (eighteen years ago)

Er...and also a lot of people (myself included) did alright out of the whole thing. We've moved pretty painlessly from an inner city two-bed terrace with a yard to a four bed detached house in the 'burbs with a lovely garden. We're not high earners by any stretch and have no major debts (except of course the mortgage), we rarely save any money but being sensible we are sitting on a house which even if it were to drop 50% would still not be less than we paid for it five years ago. There are a lot of people like us, but, it seems unlike a lot of them, I regard myself as quite lucky and am not crying to Cameron about how hard done by I am.

Ned Trifle II, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 17:37 (eighteen years ago)

Yes booms produce many winners if your timing is right

vaqueros, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 18:36 (eighteen years ago)

Timing nothing. We bought when we got fed up with paying crappy landlords tons of cash for shitty housing. We had no idea what would happen and cared even less. The worse that could have happened is that we went back to renting.

Ned Trifle II, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 18:52 (eighteen years ago)

Timing everything, even if you weren't aware of it! The worse that could have happened is that you ended up in horror negative equity or had yr home reposessed and the end of yr credit rating forever.

stet, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 18:55 (eighteen years ago)

Ahh, you guys worry too much. Plenty of people (no, scratch that, just about everybody I know who bought around that time) went into negative equity. They didn't die, or get their houses repossessed or have their credit rating nuked. They sat tight and now are sitting on houses worth, as laxalt implied, about 15/20 times what they earn. With tiny mortgages. They did better than we did in the long run.

Ned Trifle II, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 19:07 (eighteen years ago)

They sat tight and now are sitting on houses worth, as laxalt implied, about 15/20 times what they earn

Think about the implications of this sentence

laxalt, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 19:14 (eighteen years ago)

Don't patronise me.

Ned Trifle II, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 19:24 (eighteen years ago)

Again.

Ned Trifle II, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 19:24 (eighteen years ago)

No,actually, you can. I sound like an asshole. Forgive me, I'm having a bad day for completely unrelated reasons! And I always end up taking it out on laxalt!

Ned Trifle II, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 19:39 (eighteen years ago)

http://realonomics.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/chill-pill.jpg

DG, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 19:41 (eighteen years ago)

Thanks, I need 2.

Ned Trifle II, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 19:45 (eighteen years ago)

a £200m fund to buy unsold new homes and rent them to social tenants
So if you can't sell your overpriced house, don't worry -- the government will buy it! This is a good idea how?

stet, Wednesday, 14 May 2008 13:32 (eighteen years ago)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7399340.stm

stet, Wednesday, 14 May 2008 13:33 (eighteen years ago)

Don't think they are going to buy *your* house, its new houses only to keep builders and developers afloat and to continue building all the new houses that will also be unsold

Shared Ownership is an incredible ripoff, the govt really shouldn't be pushing this kind of thing...especially now

laxalt, Wednesday, 14 May 2008 13:43 (eighteen years ago)

Shared ownership is a way of forcing people to long term save. So that this equity can be released back to pay for care once decrepit. Bricks and mortar are magic like that.

Ed, Wednesday, 14 May 2008 13:45 (eighteen years ago)

Shared equity means the buyer gets 50% the profit. In a rising market this means other houses are actually getting further away from them

Shared equity means the buyer gets 100% the losses. In a falling market the buyers equity is wiped out before the govt lose their share

laxalt, Wednesday, 14 May 2008 13:50 (eighteen years ago)

oh and guess who is responsible for 100% the maintenance?

laxalt, Wednesday, 14 May 2008 14:18 (eighteen years ago)

oops ive just noticed the actual figure here

a £200m fund to buy unsold new homes

how many houses do they think this will actually buy?

laxalt, Wednesday, 14 May 2008 16:08 (eighteen years ago)

more tomorrow than today

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 14 May 2008 16:10 (eighteen years ago)

three months pass...

Are they finally beginning to admit to it now? Did Healey or even Philip Snowdon actually say anything like that? (Esp when you consider the last 60 years included rationing of food!)

Motive: Is it

a) Breaking ranks
b) Preparing us for a series of 'rescue packages' of some kind

Kondratieff, Saturday, 30 August 2008 08:42 (seventeen years ago)

two weeks pass...

Uh, please don't LOL at my bank. Am I fuX0red?

The Lesser of Two Weevils (Masonic Boom), Monday, 15 September 2008 11:24 (seventeen years ago)

I've never known trade as bad as this. It's worse than the '80's up here.

i hode interesting bracelet (Pashmina), Monday, 15 September 2008 11:31 (seventeen years ago)

you are fine as long as you don't have more that £35,000 in savings and even then the government ended up guaranteeing all deposits when Northern Rock went titsup.

Drinking Island is inside every one of us (Ed), Monday, 15 September 2008 11:33 (seventeen years ago)

Oh, that's share price, not the bank actually falling apart or anything. I hope? What happens to your savings (ha ha, they just gave me an overdraft... oh wait, my paycheck just went in.) in the UK if your bank fails? There isn't an FDIC or whatever over here, is there?

x-post OK, phew.

The Lesser of Two Weevils (Masonic Boom), Monday, 15 September 2008 11:34 (seventeen years ago)

Best comment I've heard so far, 'I'm keeping my money in my mattress, at least I know it'll be there in the spring'.

Billy Dods, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 17:00 (seventeen years ago)

RBOS owns my US bank... let me know when I should be worried.

Ned Raggett (Edward III), Tuesday, 16 September 2008 18:56 (seventeen years ago)

Strange. It's like I've posted here before.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 18:58 (seventeen years ago)

Never mind, it was just a passing sensation.

Ned Raggett (Edward III), Tuesday, 16 September 2008 19:44 (seventeen years ago)

Best comment I've heard so far, 'I'm keeping my money in my mattress, at least I know it'll be there in the spring'.

― Billy Dods, Tuesday, September 16, 2008 7:00 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

not where i live.

you used to be able to kick a ball in the street.

your worst fucking nightmare (special guest stars mark bronson), Tuesday, 16 September 2008 20:36 (seventeen years ago)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7620483.stm

Drinking Island is inside every one of us (Ed), Wednesday, 17 September 2008 11:23 (seventeen years ago)

RBOS != HBOS.

Royal (have Scotland actually had royalty since the Glorious Revolution?) vs. Halifax/Bank of Scotland.

(I have never understood why there were two. I can only assume it's some devious Sassenach plot.)

Sweaty and Cowbelled (Masonic Boom), Wednesday, 17 September 2008 13:11 (seventeen years ago)

yes, they are different in that HBOS is on the maelstrom's cusp while RBOS is only heading in its general direction

Edward III, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 14:00 (seventeen years ago)

FSA have apparently banned short trading on shares in banks and insurers. Classic shutting stable door after horse has bolted scenario.

Billy Dods, Thursday, 18 September 2008 17:15 (seventeen years ago)

As I said on the other thread: "Wouldn't a ban on short selling allow an overvalued stock to remain so for longer? So once investors decide to bail there's pretty much the same effect, especially in a climate of complete panic."

Matt DC, Friday, 19 September 2008 08:41 (seventeen years ago)

It just removes some liquidity from the market, which might restrict some of the herd instinct. However if people want to go short there wil still be ways for people to do it and that sentiment will feed back into the market.

Drinking Island is inside every one of us (Ed), Friday, 19 September 2008 08:43 (seventeen years ago)

Also it was hilarious to watch the mid-market Tory tabloids going "YES! ABOUT TIME TOO!" Lol Tory supporters not understanding modern Conservatism at all.

Matt DC, Friday, 19 September 2008 08:44 (seventeen years ago)

i think they all have been to some extent (read recently that Derbyshire Building Society have a high % of non-prime, and they're a mutual, with supposedly some sense!)

― laxalt, Monday, 18 February 2008 10:38 (7 months ago) Permalink

wonder whatever happened to them!

laxalt, Friday, 19 September 2008 09:20 (seventeen years ago)

lol bradford and bingley

caek, Sunday, 28 September 2008 13:40 (seventeen years ago)

Is that all the demutualizeds gone now? Not a single one left?

Any of the mutuals vulnerable? I think Britannia and then Scarboro

Fletcher, Sunday, 28 September 2008 13:52 (seventeen years ago)

So then, how does it feel to be a share holder ina bunch of clapped out banks?

Christopher Blix Hammer (Ed), Wednesday, 8 October 2008 08:52 (seventeen years ago)

Great, can I sell my shares immediately?

Matt DC, Wednesday, 8 October 2008 09:13 (seventeen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.