ianrobo1

can ot believe it will be another 20% fall but who **** knows what the next 12 months may bring where is the floor ? at leats in terms of multiples of average income it looks better at about 5/6 times rather than 7/8 is the floor whene average is 4 times average salrary say £120k another 20% fall then ?

you get the prize ... birth mum known, father not

Christ you make it seem almost a crusade to get yself and Ian to do this and I won;t play your silly little games, the blame for me is simple th free market system and all those who believe in it, most for their own ends, whether it is Brown, thatch, Bush whoever names do not matter because under any party this owuld have happened because we had little control over it the great crusader or that is how it seems to some - Vince Cable has never said he would change the system, just tweak it ... so until Baks are not allowed by regs to base their business on their loan books or 'assets' we woill not see any difference it is only a question of when it will happen next

isn't he part of ALL ??? durrrr the fact is you have a choice between state and private, it has always been the same the question is of the balance between the two no country in the world has the solution

Gringo, as I have explained before US are to blame because we want the consumer economy, we want the nice cars, the expensive TV's the leather furniture WE supported the policy of selling off council houses etc. etc.

Gringo, I think when I say blame ALL that includes all, us, the system, the banks, the poltician and until peopel except the freemarket is a false veneer of success the circle will happen again but no one will be brave enough to do this so we can turn let it all go but the pain will be enormous and the social reprecussions could deeply **** us all up

for some of us that is the correct option and my parents were married for 40 years until my Dad's death work that out

right Gringo, nice evasion but no answer from you ?? lets face we have seen two banks nationalised effectively and anothr as good as it so it has happened, also in the states with AIG for example, so you agree the State had to prop them up at the cost of all that money

including thatch, Major, Reegan, Bush Mk 1, Clintn, Bush mk 2, blair, Brown, Merkel, Mitterand, Chricac etc. etc now getting back to where we are Gringo, would you have let the banks go under and done nothing or would you have supported them to the tune of Trillions of dollars ?

and of course the scapegoating has already started by peopel a few months back happy to work with 'forgeiners'

As some bloke said earlier They don't know what they are doing they are making it up as they go along. The only thing they do know is they got it wrong for the last 10-30 years but won't admit it. no anwered the question at all, given the current situation as clocks can not be turned back would you have rescued all the banks named above and if not you are aware of the consequences of this ? Where we got now is the fault I am sure you would agree of ALL who signed up to the free market principles

Some Rabi in the US said recently , that instead of giving $800 bn to bail out banks that were irresponsible and failing , why not use the money to create a well run peoples bank and let the others go to the wall Interesting thought .... all those having a go at the current policies of the US, UK and German governments still fail to answer if they would have allowed bofA, Citibank, AIG, JP Morgan, HBOS, RBS, B&B, Northern rock an a few others go under and what they think the impact of that would have been given we saw what happened to Lehman;s ?

to some extent yes because the deabte is about economic philsophy just parties sign up to it for example you say loads of borrowing but this was needed to stop at least 4 major UK banks from collapsing so the economic questions is in a free market do you allow them to the poltical questions is whether you should

it is a shame he picked it I bleieve from the house price crash where I consisently argued house prices were twoo high at 7 times average wage and a correction was needed what none of us knoew at teh time was how much the banks had relied on high house prices for their lending

so Labour is to blame for the recessions in every G7 country and the whole of Europe Christ I wished the UK had that much influence ? Labour were responsible for Lehman's crashing and Bof A running to the fed ? where did the Credit crunch start ? Wall Street or the Square mile ? which country went into recession first US or UK let me give you a clue it wasn't the UK Germany - a few centre right governments predicted by the IMF to have a fall in GDP or just 0.3% better than us ? Americal under Reps these past 8 years a fall of more than 2% need I go on to prove just how wrong you are to repeat the mantra ALL TO BLAME

is this not an economic debate ? if you don;t like it either reply and we debate or to put it simply get out of the thread

this guy would not be a right winger would he typical right wing response in a recession do **** all never mind it is right wing free market deregulated markets that caused this 'price worth paying' © Norman Lamont what they never say is the impact of BofA, Citibank, RBS, HBOS, and many others failing would have had, Lehman alone caused massive provblems, multiply that 10 fold and we are looking at omething that would destroy all soceities this situation has never been seen before i all our lifetimes and times have changed since 1929, this is a new situation and laissez faire or intervention will have it's negatives and positives but to seriously suggest governements do either nothing or relatively little is madness what we see now is small beer to the recessions in our lifetimes

not zero but less and less certainly for the city remebering it accounts for some 10% of GDP

a true free market means no regulations doesn't it ? all parties have signed up to it

simple in a free market trade will always go to the palce where there is the greatest freedom/profit hence the leakage of cheap jobs to china for profit and free labour laws ...

powerless defintely, if they had not done this the city would have reacted badly business would have gone to other stock markets and the Tories would have screamed about it there was no real choice if you accept the free market

so basically do nothing then ? because that is the old age Tory policy in a recession, but this one is much different this is one so disimilar to the others it is not even on the same planet as them. Without massive intervention Tony you knwo HBOS, Northern rock, B&B, RBS would have all gone bust by now what impact do you think that would have had ? no point advocating insurancing borrowing (handg on weren;t the Tories decrying the amount of borrowing ??) when no banks are around to lend it ?

my 'loyality' is being rewarded now a reward for us in these hard times is hopefully frozen ticket prices and offers like £40 for a family of 4 is a reward for all Villa fans

Indeed. Who removed the perfectly fine regulatory powers from the BoE, created the FSA and then refused to give it any teeth? Answers on a P45 to clueless of Downing Street please.. To answer this and Snowy, simply the over riding ethos of the city was less and less regulations, things were fine, things appeared under control so all governments did it, us and the US to greater extent the free marketers demanded the light touch, they got it and abused it, 70 years ago lessons were leanrt but then forgotton, probably the same will happen again

so we are not in a crisis and panic mode now ? this is the worse for two generations I think actions have to be done now, the consequences can only be seen later for good or bad