The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[Awol]

13 minutes ago, villakram said:

What utterly contemptible bastards these Labor marxists are... free the banks, free the banks!

Haha, Labour saved the sodding banks (ok, it had to be done) but then let the criminals in charge off scot free. Literally. 

Edit: Fail, bail, send to jail. 

Edited May 8, 2017 by Awol

[dAVe80]

19 minutes ago, Awol said:

Haha, Labour saved the sodding banks (ok, it had to be done) but then let the criminals in charge off scot free. Literally. 

It wasn't Labour Marxists, it was Labour Neo Liberals. Labour Marxist would have sent to the bankers to the Gulag, along with the Labour Neo Liberals, if they could get away with it!

Edited May 8, 2017 by dAVe80

[villakram]

10 minutes ago, dAVe80 said:

It wasn't Labour Marxists, it was Labour Neo Liberals. Labour Marxist would have sent to the bankers the Gulag, along with the Labour Neo Liberals, if they could get away with it!

We are only allowed to choose when both the red and the blue team play for the same neo-liberal owner.

[MakemineVanilla]

21 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Easy.

Capitalism is where banks make profits and are allowed to be 'clever' with the tax they pay. It's not worth upsetting them, in case they leave the country.

Then, if there's a banking crisis, the state bails them out.

Once they begin to recover, the state then has to offer them 'incentives' to stay based in London and not move to Frankfurt.

Capitalism. 

But history teaches us that it is governments which create crises, when they interfere with banks and then the banks get the blame.

The General Strike was caused by Churchill putting the pound back on the gold standard.

The Fed caused the 1930s depression by increasing the money supply which caused the stock market bubble.

The German government caused the hyperinflation in the 1920s by printing money after the occupation of the Ruhr by the French. 

The Tories caused the devaluation of the pound in the 1960s because Barber had his 'dash for growth' budget which caused a balance of payments deficit.

The Tories created recessions by restricting the money supply too severely in the 1980s.

The Democrats caused a financial crisis by blocking regulation of Freddie Mac.

The Clinton administration caused the last financial crisis because it compelled banks to lend to people with poor credit ratings which created toxic debts for the financial institutions.

But no matter what governments do the people always blame the banks.

It is even likely that 'bank' has now become a euphemism for 'Jew': because whenever there was a financial crisis in history, the Jews got the blame.

[chrisp65]

Yeah, to be clear, when I said bank, I meant gay black immigrant jewish single mother.

 

 

[Xela]

11 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Yeah, to be clear, when I said bank, I meant gay black immigrant jewish single mother.

 

 

In a wheelchair?

[chrisp65]

5 minutes ago, Xela said:

In a wheelchair?

First draught included a jihadi suicide wheelchair, but then I thought people would rumble I wasn't being serious.

[TrentVilla]

4 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Labour in particular are very very strapped for cash. 

Maybe they could charge people to vote for their next leader?

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, MakemineVanilla said:

The Clinton administration caused the last financial crisis because it compelled banks to lend to people with poor credit ratings which created toxic debts for the financial institutions.

This is just, like, not the reason the financial crisis happened. 

[MakemineVanilla]

29 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

This is just, like, not the reason the financial crisis happened. 

Peter Wallison of the Financial Crisis Enquiry Commission opined thus: "I believe that the sine qua non of the financial crisis was U.S. government housing policy, which led to the creation of 27 million subprime and other risky loans—half of all mortgages in the United States—which were ready to default as soon as the massive 1997–2007 housing bubble began to deflate. If the U.S. government had not chosen this policy path—fostering the growth of a bubble of unprecedented size and an equally unprecedented number of weak and high risk residential mortgages—the great financial crisis of 2008 would never have occurred."

[chrisp65]

So Welsh Labour have launched their campaign today. Making sure that they distinguish themselves as a separate entity from 'Corbyn Labour', to avoid any possible association with chaos, marxism or general incompetence.

Campaign was launched by Carwyn Jones at the Glamorgan cricket ground just over the park from my office.

Given that they've wanted to stress they are a distinct entity for Wales, that they are Welsh Labour with their own priorities they have issued their 5 General Election pledges.

Makes you wonder who came up with the 5 aims. Given that 3 of them are devolved to the Welsh Assembly and nothing to do with Westminster.

Labour really does need to take a deep breath and sort itself out. Please. I would consider myself a natural Labour voter and would revert back to type at a whiff of competence, but they are testing me to breaking point.

[HanoiVillan]

4 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

Peter Wallison of the Financial Crisis Enquiry Commission opined thus: "I believe that the sine qua non of the financial crisis was U.S. government housing policy, which led to the creation of 27 million subprime and other risky loans—half of all mortgages in the United States—which were ready to default as soon as the massive 1997–2007 housing bubble began to deflate. If the U.S. government had not chosen this policy path—fostering the growth of a bubble of unprecedented size and an equally unprecedented number of weak and high risk residential mortgages—the great financial crisis of 2008 would never have occurred."

An alternative view:

'At the peak in 2006, subprime mortgages in the USA totalled about US$1.5trn in total outstandings. This is slightly less than 15% of the total mortgage market, and somewhat less than 10% of total housing values. The S&P500 alone is capitalised at a bit more than US$10trn; the average monthly fluctuation in equity market values as a whole is somewhat more than the total value of the subprime mortgage market. Added to which, you will note that the “financial crisis”, with the notable exception of AIG (and of course, AIG is a “notable exception” in the non-pejorative, rule-proving sense, because it was brought down by non-insurance trading and securities lending operations) was more or less purely a banking crisis. Life assurance, pensions and mutual fund companies, to an overwhelming extent, were not exposed to subprime bonds; the main owners were hedge funds and the banking system itself. Given this, it seems unlikely that subprime could possibly have caused a large enough wealth effect to slow the economy down so badly. The US$6trn of housing wealth lost by Americans seems a more likely candidate.'

[. . .]

'Geographically, within the USA, the severity of the recession matches up to the house price rise and fall, not to the incidence of subprime lending.'

[. . .]

'In my view, it’s a mistake to see the mortgage and subprime bubble as a separate entity from the dot com/telecom bubble, and to see either as a distinct entity from the general increase in both personal sector indebtedness in the English-speaking economies, and government indebtedness in Euroland. In the past, I’ve emphasised one aspect of this – the real estate bubble as a policy response to the dot com crash – but it’s actually somewhat larger than that. Although the chart of overall personal sector debt has something of a visible inflection point around 2000, you can see that neither the debt service to income nor debt balance to total income charts for the US household sector really show either event. Although there were undeniable aspects of a speculative bubble to both the dot com and real estate bezzles, the actual long term dynamic here – the build-up of overhanging debt on the US private sector and Euroland public sector – doesn’t really look like a bubble. It looks like the cumulation of a long-term and persistent imbalance, ratcheting up the gross debt, which was sustained for longer than it could otherwise have been because of the two speculative bubbles (which inflated the value of the assets on the other side of the balance sheet), and which has now become critical as the asset side has bezzled away, making the net debt position approach the gross debt.'

'And it should be clear what we’re talking about here to anyone who has paid even a bit of attention for the last twenty years; the Great Trans-pacific Imbalance. The “savings glut”, the “China effect”, what have you. Basically, the consequence of a) Chinese (also Asian, also to a limited extent other emerging markets) decision to run a large trade surplus as part of a strategy of industrialisation (or because they wanted to be sure never to end up in the position of 1998 Indonesia, or something else), combined with the decision on the part of Europe and the USA to accomodate this policy through substantial real appreciation of their own currencies.
 

'If you are importing capital, then the foreign sector surplus has to show up as a deficit in some other sector, mathematically. In the USA it showed up as a deficit in the personal sector, with the increase in indebtedness financing an asset price inflation. In Euroland, it showed up mainly as a big increase in government sector deficit.'

http://crookedtimber.org/2013/11/21/the-global-bezzle-whence-it-came-where-it-went-and-why-it-matters-repost-from-2011/

[HanoiVillan]

16 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

Peter Wallison of the Financial Crisis Enquiry Commission opined thus: "I believe that the sine qua non of the financial crisis was U.S. government housing policy, which led to the creation of 27 million subprime and other risky loans—half of all mortgages in the United States—which were ready to default as soon as the massive 1997–2007 housing bubble began to deflate. If the U.S. government had not chosen this policy path—fostering the growth of a bubble of unprecedented size and an equally unprecedented number of weak and high risk residential mortgages—the great financial crisis of 2008 would never have occurred."

It's also a very important distinction to make that Mr Wallison there talks about 'subprime loans', whereas you talked about 'compelling banks to lend to people with poor credit ratings'. The borrower having a poor credit rating is one of only four possible ways a loan could receive a subprime designation:

'The reality is that subprime mortgages went to all kinds of borrowers, not only those with impaired credit. The myth that subprime loans went only to those with bad credit arises from overlooking the complexity of the subprime mortgage market and the fact that subprime mortgages are defined in a number of ways – not just by the credit quality of borrowers.

Specifically, if a loan was given to a borrower with a low credit score or a history of delinquency or bankruptcy, lenders would most likely label it subprime. But mortgages could also be labelled subprime if they were originated by a lender specialising in high-cost loans – although not all high-cost loans are subprime. Also, unusual types of mortgages generally not available in the prime market, such as so-called “2/28 hybrids”, would be labelled subprime even if they were given to borrowers with credit scores that were sufficiently high to qualify for prime mortgage loans.

The process of securitising a loan could also affect its subprime designation. Many subprime mortgages were securitised and sold on the secondary market. Securitisers rank pools of mortgages from the most to the least risky at the time of securitisation, basing the ranking on a combination of several risk factors, such as credit score, loan-to-value and debt-to-income ratios, etc. The most risky pools would become a part of a subprime security. All the loans in that security would be labelled subprime, regardless of the borrowers’ credit scores.'

http://voxeu.org/article/subprime-mortgages-myths-and-reality

[darrenm]

11 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

So Welsh Labour have launched their campaign today. Making sure that they distinguish themselves as a separate entity from 'Corbyn Labour', to avoid any possible association with chaos, marxism or general incompetence.

Campaign was launched by Carwyn Jones at the Glamorgan cricket ground just over the park from my office.

Given that they've wanted to stress they are a distinct entity for Wales, that they are Welsh Labour with their own priorities they have issued their 5 General Election pledges.

Makes you wonder who came up with the 5 aims. Given that 3 of them are devolved to the Welsh Assembly and nothing to do with Westminster.

Labour really does need to take a deep breath and sort itself out. Please. I would consider myself a natural Labour voter and would revert back to type at a whiff of competence, but they are testing me to breaking point.

Welsh Labour obviously get a lot of crap on the doorstep from idiots who don't like Corbyn but don't know why so they feel they have to distance themselves from him.

And then you can tie that back to the incredible job the right wing media have done to make people think this way.

The people who form this opinion without knowing why seem to be the suggestible people. Some people are naturally more suggestible than others. They're the ones who can be hypnotised, who share posts on facebook about 200 holidays to Mauritius that can't be sold but will be given away, who get taken in by email scams, who believe 90% of what Snopes disproves.

I was listening to LBC the other day. They had disgraced former MP Simon Danczuk on who said 'Jeremy Corbyn is dangerous'. They then played that little soundbite every 15 minutes. A constant message 'Corbyn is dangerous' brainwashes suggestible people who can't see the irony in Danczuk who is dangerous to 17 year old girls calling someone else dangerous.

[chrisp65]

15 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Welsh Labour obviously get a lot of crap on the doorstep from idiots who don't like Corbyn but don't know why so they feel they have to distance themselves from him.

And then you can tie that back to the incredible job the right wing media have done to make people think this way.

Unfortunately, it's a bit of a double whammy at the moment.

You've got fools who are easily fooled by the 'wrap' advert on their local newspaper saying vote for a strong May.

But you've also got fools who take a tiny little bit more interest, that are just seeing such a farce that they are becoming really really sad about it. Of the five pledges, three were not relevant to the General Election and Westminster, being devolved already. Three pledge on things it is already in their own power to do.

Of the other two, one was to increase the number of police in Wales. Yet they were offered the opportunity to take on policing as a direct devolved power - and they declined. The power to increase the number of police was offered to them, they declined, now they are campaigning for more police.

It's not a great pledge card. Yet it's the one they came up with all by themselves, so as not to look like that shambles of a party over the bridge.

[MakemineVanilla]

11 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

An alternative view:

 

Thanks for the extra info.

I think it is true to say that pressure was brought to bear on lenders to give credit to African Americans because they tend to have low credit scores and it is claimed that it is racist.

It is still a big issue and debt for all races and all classes is still a huge problem in America.

Debt is also a huge problem for people in this country and that is why, in a previous post yesterday, I wrote that credit control and usury law should be Labour Party policy.

The UK is back on a credit binge and levels are heading towards the peak of £208bn before the crisis.

Everyone knows the amoral self-interested nature of banks and we know that savers have been bailed in for the benefit of the banks and their debtors, in the form of derisory low interest rate, so the moral hazard has not been addressed.

Refusing to address that moral hazard while blaming the banks is just deflecting the responsibility.

Edited May 9, 2017 by MakemineVanilla

[Dr_Pangloss]

12 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

It's also a very important distinction to make that Mr Wallison there talks about 'subprime loans', whereas you talked about 'compelling banks to lend to people with poor credit ratings'. The borrower having a poor credit rating is one of only four possible ways a loan could receive a subprime designation:

'The reality is that subprime mortgages went to all kinds of borrowers, not only those with impaired credit. The myth that subprime loans went only to those with bad credit arises from overlooking the complexity of the subprime mortgage market and the fact that subprime mortgages are defined in a number of ways – not just by the credit quality of borrowers.

Specifically, if a loan was given to a borrower with a low credit score or a history of delinquency or bankruptcy, lenders would most likely label it subprime. But mortgages could also be labelled subprime if they were originated by a lender specialising in high-cost loans – although not all high-cost loans are subprime. Also, unusual types of mortgages generally not available in the prime market, such as so-called “2/28 hybrids”, would be labelled subprime even if they were given to borrowers with credit scores that were sufficiently high to qualify for prime mortgage loans.

The process of securitising a loan could also affect its subprime designation. Many subprime mortgages were securitised and sold on the secondary market. Securitisers rank pools of mortgages from the most to the least risky at the time of securitisation, basing the ranking on a combination of several risk factors, such as credit score, loan-to-value and debt-to-income ratios, etc. The most risky pools would become a part of a subprime security. All the loans in that security would be labelled subprime, regardless of the borrowers’ credit scores.'

http://voxeu.org/article/subprime-mortgages-myths-and-reality

Yes, a key feature of the crisis was the miss-selling of subprime mortgages to otherwise 'prime' candidates, brokers were under some really perverse incentives, which also lead to things like NINJA mortgages (No Income, No Job, No Assets). Also a key feature of securitisation was the packaging up of bad and good loans, so when the bad loans defaulted it was impossible to unwind the these from the MBS (mortgage backed securites). 

[Dr_Pangloss]

39 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

Thanks for the extra info.

I think it is true to say that pressure was brought to bear on lenders to give credit to African Americans because they tend to have low credit scores and it is claimed that it is racist.

It is still a big issue and debt for all races and all classes is still a huge problem in America.

Debt is also a huge problem for people in this country and that is why, in a previous post yesterday, I wrote that credit control and usury law should be Labour Party policy.

The UK is back on a credit binge and levels are heading towards the peak of £208bn before the crisis.

Everyone knows the amoral self-interested nature of banks and we know that savers have been bailed in for the benefit of the banks and their debtors, in the form of derisory low interest rate, so the moral hazard has not been addressed.

Refusing to address that moral hazard while blaming the banks is just deflecting the blame.

Plausible, but wouldn't limit it to African Americans. This sort of theory is somewhat consistent with Raghuram Rajan's Fault Lines where he identifies that rising inequality (among minorities and the poor) lead to increased pressures on the state to provide greater access to things like mortgages, hence contributing to the development/ proliferation of subprime mortgages. 

[MakemineVanilla]

34 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

Plausible, but wouldn't limit it to African Americans. This sort of theory is somewhat consistent with Raghuram Rajan's Fault Lines where he identifies that rising inequality (among minorities and the poor) lead to increased pressures on the state to provide greater access to things like mortgages, hence contributing to the development/ proliferation of subprime mortgages. 

Thanks !

That sounds like a must-read, I've put it on my Amazon list. 

[mockingbird_franklin]

18 hours ago, MakemineVanilla said:

But history teaches us that it is governments which create crises, when they interfere with banks and then the banks get the blame.

 

most history is just the story from a particular view point. and one things banks excel at is having excellent propaganda. I would say 99.9% of the population don't even know what the real business of most banks is. believing some fairly tale provided by the banks.