Iain Duncan Smith resigns from Cabinet

[I1L2T3]

Without securitization there would be less growth in the economy, with less growth come less tax, and less tax means less for everyone that relies on it to survive.

 

You are that daft smithy

 

You do realise that securitization of sub-prime mortgages, and the subsequent failure of the CMOs based on them was the trigger for the global crash in 2008? And that we have almost ever since been told that we must cut benefits to deal with the aftermath? And that disabled people have been a major target for those cuts?

 

Securitization at the level it was used by banks was not designed to benefit society. It was meant to suck ever larger sums into the banks to feed pay and bonuses for bankers. They crashed the system using it and we are all paying the price.

[sutty27]

You do realise that securitization of sub-prime mortgages, and the subsequent failure of the CMOs based on them was the trigger for the global crash in 2008? And that we have almost ever since been told that we must cut benefits to deal with the aftermath? And that disabled people have been a major target for those cuts?

 

Securitization at the level it was used by banks was not designed to benefit society. It was meant to suck ever larger sums into the banks to feed pay and bonuses for bankers. They crashed the system using it and we are all paying the price.

 

It was also the reason for the economic growth prior to the crash, without securitization there wouldn't have been economic growth before the crash and the disabled wouldn't have benefited from the increase tax receipts that that growth brought. Gordon Brown thought he had eliminated boom and bust, but the only way to stop the bust is stop the growth that always precedes it.

Edited March 24, 2016 by sutty27

[Bob Arctor]

You are that daft smithy

 

You do realise that securitization of sub-prime mortgages, and the subsequent failure of the CMOs based on them was the trigger for the global crash in 2008? And that we have almost ever since been told that we must cut benefits to deal with the aftermath? And that disabled people have been a major target for those cuts?

 

Securitization at the level it was used by banks was not designed to benefit society. It was meant to suck ever larger sums into the banks to feed pay and bonuses for bankers. They crashed the system using it and we are all paying the price.

 

The more people who know this the better, because not understanding how the massive crash in 2007/8 was brought about heightens the risk of allowing it to happen again. The rich use the term 'wealth creators' to describe themselves as a way of limiting criticism of their actions and of wealth inequality; the reality is they destroyed vast amounts of wealth less than 10 years ago and nothing substantial has been done to prevent this happening again.

[Mister M]

I wonder whether the former chairman of the Financial Services Authority had activities like securitization in his mind when he labelled much of the activities of the City of London as "socially useless":

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/6096546/City-is-too-big-and-socially-useless-says-Lord-Turner.html

[sutty27]

I wonder whether the former chairman of the Financial Services Authority had activities like securitization in his mind when he labelled much of the activities of the City of London as "socially useless":

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/6096546/City-is-too-big-and-socially-useless-says-Lord-Turner.html

 

He said it accounts for too much of British output which means it accounts for too much to UK economic growth. So how much economic growth are we prepared to loose to cut the financial sector.

 

Britain's financial services sector grew rapidly between 2006 and 2009. The UK economy has long been a dominant player in financial services, along with the US, but growth in the sector between 2006 and 2009 was particularly rapid. By 2009, the sector accounted for 10% of UK GDP, the highest of all G7 economies.

 

Financial services are a key part of UK exports. Britain has the highest ratio of services exports to GDP in the G7, at 13%.

 

UK household spending suffered the biggest fall in the G7 in 2008-09, that would because most of the spending was driven by debt.

 

Looks like we would have been in recession long before the crash if we hadn't had such high growth in the financial services sector.

Edited March 24, 2016 by sutty27

[I1L2T3]

It was also the reason for the economic growth prior to the crash, without securitization there wouldn't have been economic growth before the crash and the disabled wouldn't have benefited from the increase tax receipts that that growth brought. Gordon Brown thought he had eliminated boom and bust, but the only way to stop the bust is stop the growth that always precedes it.

 

Yes we would have grown in the same way we did prior to the big bang in 1986 and the subsequent massive increase in securitization.

 

The economy had been growing for centuries before that.

[Bob Arctor]

Yes we would have grown in the same way we did prior to the big bang in 1986 and the subsequent massive increase in securitization.

 

The economy had been growing for centuries before that.

 

Hush now, don't you know that sutty repeating the same mantra over again makes it true? ?

[sutty27]

Yes we would have grown in the same way we did prior to the big bang in 1986 and the subsequent massive increase in securitization.

 

The economy had been growing for centuries before that.

 

What happened in the past isn't evidence that it would happen in the future and our economy relies on the financial services sector much more than it did in the past, without financial services sector our economy would be in decline.

Edited March 24, 2016 by sutty27

[andyofborg]

What happened in the past isn't evidence that it would happen in the future and our economy relies on the financial services sector much more than it did in the past, without financial services sector our economy would be in decline.

 

That might not be the case.

 

The vast quantities of foreign money flowing into the city boosts the value of sterling against other currencies. A slightly lower pound might help exporterswhich would boost the economy.

 

The city sucks in talent from all over the country. If the city was smaller then these people would have to get jobs doing something more productive.

 

You could also argue that instead of swishing money around inflating asset bubbles then it would be invested in the more useful enterprises

[sutty27]

That might not be the case.

 

The vast quantities of foreign money flowing into the city boosts the value of sterling against other currencies. A slightly lower pound might help exporterswhich would boost the economy.

 

The city sucks in talent from all over the country. If the city was smaller then these people would have to get jobs doing something more productive.

 

You could also argue that instead of swishing money around inflating asset bubbles then it would be invested in the more useful enterprises

 

But would it still flow in if we didn't have a financial services sector and a growing economy.

 

The city pulls in talent from all over the world and keeps the home grown talent here, without it they would be more likely to leave.

 

There wouldn't be any to invest if the banks didn't swish money around.