I1L2T3 Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 From your link, It has now become widely recognised that perhaps the greatest economic policy failure in the UK, US and eurozone during the 16 boom years before the crash of 2008 was the explosion of borrowing by banks, households, businesses and governments Do banks make policy or governments? Don't banks borrow money in order to lend it back to the public and business, the bottom line is that if everyone hadn't borrowed money in the first place there wouldn't have been a crash but there also wouldn't have been a 16 year boom. Shifting the goalposts I see, having been proved completely wrong about governments borrowing all the money. MrSmith used to have the same arguments. He always lost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 That the governments of the time should shoulder the most blame for the crash, then the people that wanted everything now despite it being unaffordable and finally the banks for lending money out in order to stimulate the economy. Governments were at some fault for sure. But then again who would have thought banks would sidestep their internal controls, dilute corporate responsibility and break laws to the extent that some institutions all but destroyed themselves. Who would have thought there would have been millions of households willing to enter insane financial contracts. Like I said government, financial sector and households all made the crash happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Shifting the goalposts I see, having been proved completely wrong about governments borrowing all the money. I haven't shifted the goal posts, I claimed the government should shoulder the most responsibility and you didn't prove me wrong. Nor did I claim the government borrowed all the money. The banker’s didn’t spend more than they could afford, that was the government, it was also the government that didn't save for a rainy day, and the government that borrowed money and fritted it away. The banks, the people that borrowed more than they could afford and the government are all to blame but the government should shoulder the most responsibility, because they had the power to rain in debt long before the crash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Governments were at some fault for sure. But then again who would have thought banks would sidestep their internal controls, dilute corporate responsibility and break laws to the extent that some institutions all but destroyed themselves. Who would have thought there would have been millions of households willing to enter insane financial contracts. Like I said government, financial sector and households all made the crash happen. That's what I said and I even blame them in the same order that you wrote them. The banks, the people that borrowed more than they could afford and the government are all to blame but the government should shoulder the most responsibility, because they had the power to rain in debt long before the crash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
margarete Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 There's a really good DVD about this financial jiggery-pokery: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Inside-Job-DVD-Matt-Damon/dp/B003LPUMHM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 I haven't shifted the goal posts, I claimed the government should shoulder the most responsibility and you didn't prove me wrong. Nor did I claim the government borrowed all the money. Why should the last government shoulder most responsibility for complete corporate dysfunction in the financial sector? If you want to argue that you should be going back to the changes that started to happen in the 70s and the radical changes in the 80s and 90s. The 2008 collapse was a product of the mistakes of the past few governments. MrSmith did always lose. He tended to get quite angry sometimes. It was amusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Why should the last government shoulder most responsibility for complete corporate dysfunction in the financial sector? If you want to argue that you should be going back to the changes that started to happen in the 70s and the radical changes in the 80s and 90s. The 2008 collapse was a product of the mistakes of the past few governments. I didn't say they should, I said That the governments of the time should shoulder the most blame for the crash, then the people that wanted everything now despite it being unaffordable and finally the banks for lending money out in order to stimulate the economy. But our government did have the power to change things, they had the power to increase interest rates and stop the housing bubble, Garden could have kept is Gob shut but he decided to tell everyone that he had eliminated boom and bust therefore implying all we would have is boom, some people believed him and took on more debt than they could afford. He took housing out of the inflation figures; if he had left them the bank of England would have been able to control housing inflation. They spent all the money and committed to spending money they didn’t have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 I didn't say they should, I said But our government did have the power to change things, they had the power to increase interest rates and stop the housing bubble, Garden could have kept is Gob shut but he decided to tell everyone that he had eliminated boom and bust therefore implying all we would have is boom, some people believed him and took on more debt than they could afford. He took housing out of the inflation figures; if he had left them the bank of England would have been able to control housing inflation. They spent all the money and committed to spending money they didn’t have. The government spent all the money? On houses at inflated prices? The government spent money alright, bailing out the banks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 The government spent all the money? On houses at inflated prices? Did they, I thought they just spent more than they had, committed to spend even more and even left a note to the new government which said there's no money left. The government spent money alright, bailing out the banks. Which they wouldn't have had to do if they had rained them in when warned, but Gordon new best and was delusional about his ability to eliminate boom and bust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Did they, I thought they just spent more than they had, committed to spend even more and even left a note to the new government which said there's no money left. Which they wouldn't have had to do if they had rained them in when warned, but Gordon new best and was delusional about his ability to eliminate boom and bust. The last government did overspend. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is that they spent all the money - that is clearly a ridiculous statement to make given that the current government seems to have no problem with increasing borrowing at an alarming rate. The note was a joke by the way, a bad one admittedly but not some form of official communication. I do agree that Gordon Brown got it badly wrong on the housing market. I think we've been broadly agreeing on that point for quite some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.