MrSmith Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 WHY do you think the banks allowed people to take out mortgages which were over 6 times' their annual salary ? It used to be 2 1/2 times' annual salary . This has led to over-inflated house prices , meaning that only those with lots of money have a chance of getting on the property ladder . Don't tell me that the price of bricks doubled over 10 years ! The ridiculous price of housing is purely due to MANIPULATION BY THE BANKS , I suspect they knew exactly what they were doing at the time , creating "wage slaves" who are terrified of losing a roof over their head if they lose their jobs , the threat of WorkFare and the friendly hand of Wonga ready to help them out ......( watch 97% Owned on Youtube ) I think the "elite" need to start listening to the working man , and start to get scared as they realise what "people power" really means .We need to start making credit unions fit for purpose , there ARE grounds to be positive about the future if we take our heads out of the sand and wake up to the fact that there's more to life than Cath Kidson stuff , cookery books and those annoying Big Brother type mugs with the logo " KEEP CALM AND CARRY ON". Actually that was Gordon Brown when he took housing costs out of the inflation figures. Had they remained in, inflation would have been significantly higher than it was and the Bank of England would have had the remit to control it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Actually that was Gordon Brown when he took housing costs out of the inflation figures. Had they remained in, inflation would have been significantly higher than it was and the Bank of England would have had the remit to control it. Oh I see, all the gazzumping in the mid 80s housing boom due to deregulation on the banks in 1980 was GB's fault. It's all clear now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Oh I see, all the gazzumping in the mid 80s housing boom due to deregulation on the banks in 1980 was GB's fault. It's all clear now. There was a housing bubble in the mid 80 but it was halted by increasing interest rates which were very uncomfortable for some, including me, so the bubble didn’t result in a generation of young people unable to afford housing. Then there was a housing bubble which started in 2001 which was allowed to continue until the banks collapsed. Two housing bubbles two entirely different results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grafikhaus74 Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 No they haven't, it's all Labour's fault. But Mecky, that's the problem, this tribal supporting of one side or the other. Peter Hitchens on Question Time last week had them all dumfounded when he slagged off Labour, Tories and the BBC. People (including the texters) simply couldn't see how this was possible - surely you support one side and therefore don't like the other? This is what keeps the whole circus going. Few people vote for a party any more, they vote to keep 'the other lot' out. Far from the old idiocy of 'If you don't vote, you've no right to criticise', it should be 'If you vote for any of these venal, thieving, useless conmen, you deserve all you get.' That's the choice in Greece this weekend: 'At a final rally, the head of the conservative New Democracy Party billed the vote as a choice between keeping the euro and returning to the drachma. Rival party Syriza says it wants to stay in the euro, but opposes the terms of an international bailout.' Link. So there you have it. Both parties want to stay in the Euro (and why not? They've been allowed to fiddle the system to an alarming extent). Syriza want to have their cake and eat it, the NDP want to preserve the system that caused all this crisis in the first place. Some choice. I presume both parties are doing what parties the world over do - lie to keep their fat pay checks and sod the populace. In an ideal world, the vast majority of the Greek electorate would stay at home and say 'sod the lot of you.' But they won't because, like most voters, they're sheep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 No they haven't, it's all Labour's fault. They share some of the balame for sure. But I'm still puzzled about how Gordon Brown made Freddie Mac and other American mortgage companies make loads of bad loans. About how Gordon Brown caused Greek citizens not to pay their taxes. About how Gordon Brown forced 17 countries into a flawed common currency. About how Gordon Brown made the rating agencies rate every piece of financialial junk from Hong Kong to Tokyo to Timbuktu as AAA. About how Gordon brown caused the Spanish building boom. This Gordon Brown chap sounds to be simultaneously omnipresent and an idiot. Quite an acheivement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grafikhaus74 Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 They share some of the balame for sure. But I'm still puzzled about how Gordon Brown made Freddie Mac and other American mortgage companies make loads of bad loans. About how Gordon Brown caused Greek citizens not to pay their taxes. About how Gordon Brown forced 17 countries into a flawed common currency. About how Gordon Brown made the rating agencies rate every piece of financialial junk from Hong Kong to Tokyo to Timbuktu as AAA. About how Gordon brown caused the Spanish building boom. This Gordon Brown chap sounds to be simultaneously omnipresent and an idiot. Quite an acheivement. Nobody has ever claimed Brown did any of the above. In fact, as a classic deflection technique it's on a par with 'Hitler didn't bomb Pearl Harbour, so he's not a bad bloke after all.' So let's look at what this Saviour of the World did do: The well-documented destruction of private pensions. The equally well-documented selling off of most of our gold reserves which, by being pre-announced, allowed us to sell them at rock-bottom prices. (Estimated cost at the time - has increased since - £9Bn) His 'off-sheet accounting' including PFI. Like the new schools? Hope so. Your grandchildren will be still paying for them. 'Under the terms of the PFI deals struck by Labour, taxpayers are due to pay £245 billion by the 2047/48 financial year. However, the 544 projects involved cost only £51.5 billion to build.' Link But there's more! His insistence on wasting £6Bn on two unnecessary aircraft carriers, unplanned and therefore costing far more in modifications. Still, it did provide work for 20,000 of his constituents... Talking of £6Bn (what's a few billion here and there?), this is what Brown sold Westinghouse - a world-leading developer and constructor of atomic power stations - for in a knock-down price to the Japanese. Now anybody (except a one-eyed sociophobe) knows we have a desperate need for these and we'll end up paying hundreds of billions for our future projects. Surely he's not all bad? Well, there is an enduring myth that Brown 'kept us out of the Euro'. The only reason for this was to spite Blair. Don't believe me? Well why did this Crusader for Britain sneak in, like a rat, after everybody else had left to sign the Lisbon Treaty? He thought nobody would notice. We did. Brown should be happy that his only legacy is going down as the most incompetent and corrupt Prime Minister in our history. By rights, he should be facing charges of misappropriating public funds and treason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Nobody has ever claimed Brown did any of the above. In fact, as a classic deflection technique it's on a par with 'Hitler didn't bomb Pearl Harbour, so he's not a bad bloke after all.' So let's look at what this Saviour of the World did do: The well-documented destruction of private pensions. The equally well-documented selling off of most of our gold reserves which, by being pre-announced, allowed us to sell them at rock-bottom prices. (Estimated cost at the time - has increased since - £9Bn) His 'off-sheet accounting' including PFI. Like the new schools? Hope so. Your grandchildren will be still paying for them. 'Under the terms of the PFI deals struck by Labour, taxpayers are due to pay £245 billion by the 2047/48 financial year. However, the 544 projects involved cost only £51.5 billion to build.' Link But there's more! His insistence on wasting £6Bn on two unnecessary aircraft carriers, unplanned and therefore costing far more in modifications. Still, it did provide work for 20,000 of his constituents... Talking of £6Bn (what's a few billion here and there?), this is what Brown sold Westinghouse - a world-leading developer and constructor of atomic power stations - for in a knock-down price to the Japanese. Now anybody (except a one-eyed sociophobe) knows we have a desperate need for these and we'll end up paying hundreds of billions for our future projects. Surely he's not all bad? Well, there is an enduring myth that Brown 'kept us out of the Euro'. The only reason for this was to spite Blair. Don't believe me? Well why did this Crusader for Britain sneak in, like a rat, after everybody else had left to sign the Lisbon Treaty? He thought nobody would notice. We did. Brown should be happy that his only legacy is going down as the most incompetent and corrupt Prime Minister in our history. By rights, he should be facing charges of misappropriating public funds and treason. Gordon brown didn't destroy the pension funds. He made a rule change which pension funds didn't adapt to. The biggest destruction was inflicted on pension funds by themselves, primarily through general poor management and investment decisions. If you look at how much the gold sale is reputed to have lost us then it's a small drop in the ocean in the great scheme of things, perhaps on a par with the amounts Osborne has let Vodafone avoid paying in tax. I could go on and on about your points. None of them can explain the £1tn+ debt we have now. If you want to fully explain it take a look at the banks. Seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 I like the idea in principle of giving everybody a sum they have to go out and spend in the British economy. Say, £500 of retail vouchers for every adult. If you tripled the savings of some people they would just offshore them, use them to pay down debt, spend them overseas or sit on them. There has to be some element of compulsion to spend the windfall. Alternatively we could give the millions of unemployed people jobs to do & pay them, instead of just giving more money to rich people Poor people don't have the option of saving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Alternatively we could give the millions of unemployed people jobs to do & pay them, instead of just giving more money to rich people Poor people don't have the option of saving. Instead of giving them nothing to do and paying them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shogun Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Im self employed and run a couple of businesses they have been taking money off me for years in tax and vat so if I can get a little bit back to help and maybe able to give some jobs out it seems a good idea to me,but there will be some stipulations that the banks will put up that no one can meet, they always promise the earth and very rarely deliver they will probably give the money to some airy fairy course and not to the proper bushiness who could help to give employment to people who need it' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.