Damian H

I am just waiting for UDT to tell us 'What Katie Did Next'. I have to say that it's bad enough UDT posting in a manner that reveals a level of ignorance, blinkered thinking and slight un-hingedness - it just takes things to a completely new level when, in light of that, he starts to big himself up as some type of super-brain. It reminds me of a chap I worked with many moons ago who was a paranoid and rather obnoxious type, viewed with disdain by most of the women in the office, who had managed to convince himself nonetheless that he was lusted after by every woman in the place. The chasm between the reality and the self-perception in that case is reminiscent of UDT in these present circumstances.

Undisputedtruth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Here is some more evidence where the Ordinary Joes > were victims of the financial crisis. Come on > Damian show me your evidence, you imbecille. "Mortgage broker dupes couple - read all about it". Well, that's me put in my place. Based upon your utterly moronic arguments we have to conclude that the entire medical profession is full of crooks and n'er-do-wells on the grounds that Dr Harold Shipman murdered some of his patients. Shall we lock up all the Doctors too UDT?

Undisputedtruth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I did find facts and evidence very challenging as > there were none in any of your posts. I suggest > you put up or shut up. Personally, knowing what I > know, I think it's going to be the latter. And what do you 'know' then, master?

Undisputedtruth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hardly surprising as you are unable to argue > fairly without resorting to dirty tricks and > dishonest tactics. > > I didn't know I had a hairpiece, Hugo. More mud > slinging, hey. Dishonest tactics like facts and evidence. Hmmm, I can understand why you find those challenging UDT.

It's all wonderfully vague wherever it comes from. Utterly meaningless really.

Undisputedtruth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A fair society where everyone, from road sweepers > and up, is recognised for their contribution. > > An end to the shift of wealth transfer from the > lower/modest incomes to the richest 1%. How about everyone being recognised for their criminality as well?

forget whether he has the answers - he wouldnt even understand the question. A big word like 'leverage' is as far as he gets and he probably doesn't understand that either.

You might want to proof read that post but I don't think it would really improve it. I suggest you do some research yourself. Start with the Dick and Jane Ladybird books - I think that would be the right level for you. With time you might work up to the level of tabloid newspapers.

Undisputedtruth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm getting bored of all this small minded > argument. I really don't want to waste my time > with the 'don't know any betters'. > > Thank you. In other words "I realise I have made an absolute knob of myself and have been completely out-argued. How the Hell can I try to beat a dignified retreat?"

Undisputedtruth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Damian H Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Seems you have given up addressing the actual > > issues now though since your lamentable lack of > > credibility or reason has been exposed by > multiple > > posters here. > > Dream on, sucker. Yes, UDT, I am a sucker whilst you are so very, very clever and can see straight to the heart of the issue with your incisive analysis which basically redounds to....err....bankers are b***ards and should go to prison whilst everyone else is nice really. Oh, and I read about leverage in a book once so that makes me a financial expert.

Undisputedtruth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Damian H Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I find conspiracy theorists so sad. They are > > desperately needy people. They need their > > villains because it allows them to evade > > responsibility for their own circumstances. > Gosh! > > Sounds a bit like blaming the bankers and > > exonerating the Ordinary Joe, doesn't it? > > Seems you're easily impressionable and perhaps > goes to explain your lack of understanding of the > financial crisis. > > As I said before, I do not support conspiracy > theories. I am impressionable because I find conspiracy theorists sad???? If there is a logic there I am sure you will explain it to us. Seems you have given up addressing the actual issues now though since your lamentable lack of credibility or reason has been exposed by multiple posters here.

I find conspiracy theorists so sad. They are desperately needy people. They need their villains because it allows them to evade responsibility for their own circumstances. Gosh! Sounds a bit like blaming the bankers and exonerating the Ordinary Joe, doesn't it?

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To be fair, UDT does suffer from paranoid > delusions, the poor chap. > > His convictions about bankers aren't even a patch > on his World Trade Center theories, and the New > World Order. > > Bankers are just manifestations of his core belief > that the world is run by implausibly omnipotent > super beings of such implacable evil we cannot > even guess at their machinations. Oh God, he's not a 9/11 Truther is he? What variety? That the Towers were brought down by controlled demolition? That the 'planes' were actually guided missisles with a hologram cloaking device?

Undisputedtruth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ah, the world according to bankers, hey Damian. > Manipulating the truth just to preserve their > obscene bonuses. Sorry, I tell alie, I once received a Christmas bonus of ?100. Is that obscene? I do hope not. Should I feel ashamed? Just want to know where the cut-off point is you know. Is there a sliding scale? ARe there bonuses that are Obscene, ones that are Impertinent, ones that are Cheeky, ones that are a little Off Colour? Ones that are Demure and Understated? Just trying to get a sense of the moral landscape here.

Undisputedtruth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ah, the world according to bankers, hey Damian. > Manipulating the truth just to preserve their > obscene bonuses. Since I am not a banker, have never been and have never received any type of bonus my comments hardly represent the world according to bankers. They do, however, represent the world according to someone who does not have a desperate need to hide his head in the sand and exonerate a whole category of contributors to the current crisis. Otta quite rightly points out (and I have said it many times but, naturally, you choose to ignore it) that Iam not for one moment attempting to make bankers blameless - I am pointing out that tere are a great many people who should be in the dock with them, who were just as guilty of imprope (even clearly unlawful) behaviour. You can't accept that as you need for some reason to have your scapegoats. Woodrot also reasonably points out that ED has seen more than its fair share of those riding high on the back of the hog when all was going well and ignoring the warnings from some that the bubble was unsustainable (or were these ED folk all poor ignorant illiterates - they seemed able enough to use this forum). And let's have a look at the issue of 'greed' - a word that has been bandied around a lot as a term of abuse thrown solely at bankers. WHat is the meaning of 'greed' in this context? What we are talking about is wanting to make as much money as possible, as easily as possible, as quickly as possible. DId the banks do that? Of course they did - they are commercial, profit-driven oganisations. Did EVERYONE ELSE who was involved in property speculation do the same? OF COURSE THEY DID!!!! In UDT's world, however, you can only be greedy if you are a banker. The term, it seems, cannot be applied to private individual no matter how 'greedily' they behaved.

Parkdrive Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Damian H wrote > > "To claim (as has been pointed out) that the banks > are solely to blame for not identifying the fact > that people were lying through their teeth is like > a terrorist who blows up a plane blaming airport > security for not catching him." > > It certainly isn't anything like the same thing. > To invite people to apply for financial products > such as sub prime product, WITHOUT stringent and > robust checks being made is folly of highest > order. While we're about it I would suggest its > more like a drug dealer who blames the addict for > leading the dealer into criminality. My analogy holds perfectly well. In my analogy someone knowingly commits a crime through subterfuge and then blames others for having failed to spot their deception and prevent the act. In the case of someone lying and misrepresnting their income and status in order to fraudulently obtain a mortgage and then being exonerated by the likes of UDT on the grounds that the banks should have spotted the deception is EXACTLY the same type of pattern. Let me put it this way - assume that our imaginary terrorist had got through airplort security because there was a serious security lapse, would you then exonerate the terrorist from responsibility for his actions? Of course you wouldn't!!! You would say that there was negligence by those in charge of security AND downright criminality on the part of the terrorist. The same applies to the financial situation. Yes, the banks and financial institutions should probably have been much more thorough in their checks but that does NOT excuse those who willfully lied and committed fraud. Unless, of course, you are UDT who believes that it is fair game to attempt to criminally defraud the banks and if you succeed you are completely innocent (perhaps even an illiterate 'victim') and the banks are guilty for allowing themselves to be cheated. Talk about blaming the victim!!!!!!

Undisputedtruth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Damian H Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > Your comments are risible. Are you actually > > saying that all those with sub-prime status who > > took out mortgages are illiterate and didn't > > appreciate that when you take out a loan you > have > > to pay it back???? Have you the slightest > > evidence whatsoever to back up that position??? > > > Or any of the statements you make? Has it not > > occurred to you that when a large number of > small > > scale deceptions and defaults add up you have a > > major problem such as the sub-prime crisis? > And > > the allegation of 'greedy'? No 'greed' on the > > part of those who said "Sod thbis, I can fiddle > a > > mortgage, get a house and worry about paying > for > > it later."??? > > > > You say bankers should be investigated for > fraud. > > What fraud specifically? Do you actually know > the > > meaning of the word fraud? Let me give you > > something that would fit the definition - > falsely > > claiming a level of income you don't actually > earn > > in order to deceive a lender into giving you a > > mortgage. THAT is fraud! > > > > You clearly have a need to engage in exactly > the > > type of scapegoating I have discussed in order > to > > exonerate the 'ordinary Joe' fom any sort of > > accountability for his/her behaviour and and > THAT > > is plain disgraceful. > > > > You really should change your Username, you > know. > > Damian H, you definitely need to do some research > on the financial crisis. Here's what the New York > Times have to say on banking fraud during the > financial crisis. > > 3 Former Traders at Credit Suisse Charged With > Bond Fraud > > To blame the ordinary people for the bank's role > in the financial crisis just makes you look > ridiculous, Damian. Hopefully jail is the best > place for these criminals. I don't think it is me who is making myself look ridiculous or who needs to do research. Your 'research' appears to redound to a desperate Google search which has identified the fact that three bankers were charged with fraud. Gee-whizz! Well, that confirms it then. The banking system was clearly rotten to the very core. I agree that criminals should be prosecuted and sentenced accordingly - and that should INCLUDE the hundreds of thousands who lied to and swindled financial institutions in order to defraud them of funds for personal gain. In your eyes, it seems owever, that the man on the street is INCAPABLE of wrong-doing so must have been co-erced, manipulated, deceived or exploited into criminal acts by Big Bad Bankers with gilt cuff-links, coloured braces and smoking big cigars. There is culpability across the board here but you seem to want to represent a special interest group and excuse them from the consequences of their criminal behaviour and paint them as victims. EVen when it is clear that such people engaged in criminal fraud you attempt to justify it by saying the banks should have been smarter and should have caught them. Tht is pathetic. It is a criminal's charter. Effectively you are saying that no criminal is responsible for their actions if the victim was dumb enough to be taken in. Interestingly, that type of thinking is a very common trait in sociopathic conditions.

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The point being, my italic text was referring to > all of us who fuelled the boom by geting into debt > we couldn't necessarily afford if either a)if > things stopped being rosy, or b)at all. > > You then follow that up with a straw man backed up > by an irrelevant analogy. > > Yes there were sub prime mortgages sold in the us > by dodgy salesmen with unsound practices. > What it seems to me is that you want to jail > bankers the world over for dealing in structured > products that were tied into the risk management > of these mortgages by some remove. > > Effectively (if you want to analogise, this is > iffy rather than incorrect) you want to jail > everyone who buys a cotton shirt because 7% of the > cotton used in the manufacture is grown by > indentured labour in India. > > There is no 'mounting evidence' there is merely > hindsight. I was calculating VaR against mortgage > backed securities in the early 00s and I said at > the time "err doesn't this rather go against the > small print about prices going down as well as up" > and people shrugged their shoulders because prices > kept going up and it was always a niche part of > any portfolio anyway. > > This wasn't fraud, this was large scale optimism. > > For @#$%& sake we voted in a chancellor who > promised us the end to boom and bust, and you > think its just the bankers who were idiots?! > > Get a grip and admit you weren't screaming about > the sub-prime market until it had all gone tits > up! Beautifully put. Unfortunately in UDT's eyes, bankers are inherently evil. Therefore, the bankers were gulty of fraud and should go to jail, whereas those who lied and manipulated the products but who aren't bankers are innocent victims even if they engaged in fraudulent activity. UDT is defending an ideology he can't let go - dont expect reason from him. I think your description of the situation as run-away optimism is very accurate - that is what typifies every bubble. CLearly the ordinary people who jumped on the bandwagon in order to make a quick buck and were happy to lie to achieve that were carried away by exactly the same optimism and contributed to the collapse. In UDT's eyes, for whatever reason, they were NOT guilty of greed (in fact were all completely illiterate whose souls were bought with coloured beads and shiny thinks by unscrupulous bankers) whilst the bankers were the 'greedy' ones. Strange dichotomy.

Morbid curiosity has always been a good enough reason in my book, to be honest.

Parkdrive Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Damian H Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Parkdrive Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Damian H > > > But what about the millions of 'Ordinary > Joes' > > who > > > lied through their teeth to get mortgages and > > > cynically exploited a lax financial system to > > get > > > hands on properties they knew they could not > > > afford to pay for? What about them? I am sure > > each > > > of them would say they are small fry - too > > > insignificant to have had any impact. Yet > they > > > lied and falisifed declarations of income > > > nonetheless, significantly contributing en > > masse > > > to the collapse of the sub-prime market which > > was > > > the catalyst for the global financial > collapse. > > > > > > First of all why was such a lax system > allowed > > to > > > be implemented? Probably because those that > > > implemented it thought there was money to be > > made > > > from the poor sods who saw this as the only > way > > on > > > to to the property ladder. As for the > comments > > on > > > here that many of us are jealous of these > high > > > earners, yes probably. But it doesn't alter > the > > > fact that the culture of paying people for > > failure > > > HAS to end. Are these people vilified > unjustly? > > > Perhaps, but then I'm sure their salaries > will > > > more then compensate for the grief and I'm > sure > > it > > > goes with the territory. > > > > Parkdrive, > > Your response buys into exactly the > scapegoating > > mentality that has been described and that I > > challenged. Effectively you are saying that > the > > 'poor sods' are so desperate that no-one can > > expect them to behave honestly when they are > given > > the opportunity to engage in a scam. This > > completely absolves those who lied and cheated > > from any moral culpability for their actions > and > > blames those they lied to. That is absurd! It > is > > the same mentality that says we should > write-off > > third world debt as it's unreasonable to expect > > such countries to repay the loans they took out > > and promised to repay. It's the same mentality > > that says it's ok for people to shoplift from > > Sainsburys because its a victimless crime and > > Sainsburys are a b****rd corporate so they > deserve > > it. > > > > Yes, I have no doubt that banks entered the > > sub-prime market in order to make money. In > fact, > > of course they did, they are commercial > > organisations. That does NOT excuse the > > exploitation of their products by dishonest > > people. If we take this sort of mentality of > > allowing people to shrug off any responsibility > > for their actions and simply claim 'victim' > status > > there are going to be consequences (apart from > the > > obvious financial meltdown). One, if we > write-off > > third world debt there is just about zero > prospect > > of anyone lending these countries a penny in > > future. They have got out of their current > > obligations but have made themselves credit > > pariahs in the eyes of the world. In terms of > > sub-prime defaulters - go ahead, blame the > banks > > and march on Wall Street. The fact is that no > > financial institution will touch the sub-prime > > market ever again so those who wanted to get on > > the property market will be shafted. > > > > If people act as if they cannot be held > > accountable or behave responsibility, if they > > default to 'victim' status the moment things go > > wrong, they will not be given responsibility > (in > > this case that means credit opportunities). > > > > It's one reason why I can't stand this 99% > > movement that emerged from Occupy Wall Street. > > The message from that is "we, the 99%, are > > wonderful, decent, honest people and the 1% are > > villians who should be hung by their own > > intestines from a lamp-post." It's claptrap. > I > > have no doubt that a great many of the 99% had > > their snouts in the trough as much as anyone, > just > > on a smaller scale per individual. > > > > I have no problem with bonuses being tied to > > achievements - that is as it should be, but a > > great many people simply don't want to see > bonuses > > to bankers AT ALL. Full stop! > > > > In terms of whether people should take > > vilification if they are paid enough - I don't > > think that is anyone's job description. People > > should be held reasonably accountable, > certainly, > > whatever their level in society. When someone > is > > used as a political football and has their > > property attacked as an act of scapegoating for > > others to conceal their culpability that is > > unacceptable. > > I don't buy into any such scapegoating. At the end > of the day any institution or group of individuals > that really believes it ok to let people take on a > mortgage/loan without due diligence or robust > financial checks deserve all it gets. Taking as > gospel a claim that an individual earns 4 or 5 > times their actual earnings, because the the way > the product is pitched actually encourages them to > do is bordering on criminal negligence. That > doesn't excuse the applicant, but pitching such a > product and then expecting nobody to apply for it > sort of defeats the object of the exercise. I've > never said or even hinted that anyone, bankers > included, shouldn't receive a bonus for a job well > done. But very few people in the UK today get a > bonus full stop. I haven't for the best part of 10 > years and I'm not really fussed as I knew that > when I took my jobs on. > > I find your remarks somewhat patronsing. Going > back to the sub prime thing, you seem to suggest > that the fault should be laid at the door or those > that bought into the product and that those that > pushed it are blameless, try and get your balance > right and you might find some support. Bonuses are > a sore point and that will remain the case while > only a small perecentage of the population have > any chance of getting one. I speak as someone that > has enjoyed packages that included an end of year > bonus in the region of 10% of gross salary and 15% > non contributory pension plan, and free BUPA from > family and I. This is no longer is the case, so I > can understand both sides of the argument, but I > don't try to lay the blame on a single entity of > individual, I'd settle for proportional > responsibility weighted against those that sell > the product. If that's what you think I was saying you obviously haven't read what I have posted properly. I have been putting forward exactly the balance that you claim I am lacking. My purpose has been to counter the ridiculous vilification and scapegoating of the banks and point out that there are many others who also bear responsibility for what happened. It seems,however, that there is a great desire to exonerate from ANY responsibility those who lied and misrepresented their circumstances in order to get mortgages to make a quick buck or get a house knew they could not afford. Sure, the banks should have engaged in a bit more DD on the claims that were being made but that does NOT alter the fact that many, many people lied to get financial products and then defaulted on them. No-one is doubting that the banks played a role - what I am pointing out is the need for balance and a recognition that the deceit of many customers who hoped to access some type of get rich quick magic through property speculation was also a significant factor. As was the negligence of the same politicians who are now posturing as guardians of the public and scapegoating the banks. To claim (as has been pointed out) that the banks are solely to blame for not identifying the fact that people were lying through their teeth is like a terrorist who blows up a plane blaming airport security for not catching him. You know, this whole affair is uncomfortably reminiscent to be honest of the same mentality that pertained in Germany in the 1930s. There was economic hardship and disatisfaction and that situation, which was a complex cocktail of many factors, was manipulated and simplified down, for cynical political reasons, to pointing the finger at one group. In Germany it was Jewish financiers - in the current climate it is financiers of any type. What is the difference except for scale between Fred Goodwin having his windows broken and the events of Crystalnacht? What is the difference between depicting Jewish financiers as rats and the depection of bankers as Fat Cats? It is a cynical over-simplification of affairs to divert attention away from wider culpability by scapegoating one group. My postings, which identify the culpability of a wide range of people - banks, customers, regulators and politicians - reflect much greater balance than those posters who claim that all those who took out mortgages they couldn't pay are innocent illiterate victims who didn't know what they were signing, those who claim the banks are solely to blame if they didn't detect that someone was defrauding them and those who effectively just say that bankers are b***ards who deserve anything they get.

Undisputedtruth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Damian H Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > But what about the millions of 'Ordinary Joes' who > lied through their teeth to get mortgages and > cynically exploited a lax financial system to get > hands on properties they knew they could not > afford to pay for? What about them? I am sure each > of them would say they are small fry - too > insignificant to have had any impact. Yet they > lied and falisifed declarations of income > nonetheless, significantly contributing en masse > to the collapse of the sub-prime market which was > the catalyst for the global financial collapse. > > I disagree. The 'Ordinary Joes' are the victims in > this whole matter. Most of them barely able to > read or write much less able to commit fraud on a > massive level that caused a financial crisis not > seen since the 1930s. > > The Bankers and Credit Raters did not carry out > their full 'due intelligence' checks. Mortgage > companies mis-sold their products in order to get > their commissions. Why they didn't do they jobs > properly? Because they were too frickin' greedy. > > Personally, the banks, credit rating companies and > mortgage companies should all be investigated for > fraud and forced to payback their ill gotten gains > including bonuses. Blaming 'Ordinary people' is > just plain disgraceful. And if you want to talk about 'greed' perhaps you should consider that the sub-prime catastrophe was significantly influenced by the huge increase of 'Ordinary Joes' taking our mortgages, not to buy a primary place of residence, but as investment properties because they thought the house-price bubble would continue to grow and they could make money for nothing by buying and then flipping their properties for profit. If a financial company behaved like that you would doubtless describe it as 'frickin gree' but when it is an OrdinaryJoe they are....a victim???? And I suppose you would have us believe that these Ordinary Joes who were amateur DIY property speculators were all illiterate and ddn't know what they were doing? That an evil mortgage salesman put a gun to their head and said "I know you already have a home but why not go out and buy more properties for rental or for flipping?" EVERYONE was looking to make money and the OrdinaryJoe was just as 'gredy' and irresponsible and ofen downright fraudulently dishonest as any bank, but you have a need to get them off the hook and scapegoat the faceless corporations.

indiepanda Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > maxxi Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Seems to me the K has been removed so the govt. > > can be SEEN to be tackling debt and the causes > of > > debt - which they're not - but in tabloid-speak > > they are - so we'll all sleep a little safer. > > > > Will Sir Ian McKellen lose his if he's in a > > spectacularly shit play? Or Sir Brucie if he > > fluffs his gags one more time? > > While I agree that removing Fred's knighthood is > hardly solving the banking industries problem, I > think comparing the mess he presided over and was > handsomely remunerated for to a poor play is an > unfair comparison (to be fair - I suspect you were > being a flippant!) > > If I see McKellen in a rubbish play I've lost an > evening of my life and the cost of the ticket / > travel etc. But the costs of bailing out RBS has > hit all of us whether we have done business with > them or not. > > To be honest I think the whole honours system is > crazy. I'd like to see people rewarded through for > doing something other than a job that they are > already well rewarded for - people who have done > great work for charity for example. > > How people life Jeffery Archer kept their > knighthoods after being to prison is beyond me, > Goodwin's far from the only one to have brought > the system into disrepute.... Probably a wiser alternative would have been not to bail ANY of the banks out at all and let them go down the tubes. That really would be the only way for the market to correct itself and for an appropriately salutary warning to be given to those who take excessive risk.

Undisputedtruth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Damian H Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > But what about the millions of 'Ordinary Joes' who > lied through their teeth to get mortgages and > cynically exploited a lax financial system to get > hands on properties they knew they could not > afford to pay for? What about them? I am sure each > of them would say they are small fry - too > insignificant to have had any impact. Yet they > lied and falisifed declarations of income > nonetheless, significantly contributing en masse > to the collapse of the sub-prime market which was > the catalyst for the global financial collapse. > > I disagree. The 'Ordinary Joes' are the victims in > this whole matter. Most of them barely able to > read or write much less able to commit fraud on a > massive level that caused a financial crisis not > seen since the 1930s. > > The Bankers and Credit Raters did not carry out > their full 'due intelligence' checks. Mortgage > companies mis-sold their products in order to get > their commissions. Why they didn't do they jobs > properly? Because they were too frickin' greedy. > > Personally, the banks, credit rating companies and > mortgage companies should all be investigated for > fraud and forced to payback their ill gotten gains > including bonuses. Blaming 'Ordinary people' is > just plain disgraceful. Your comments are risible. Are you actually saying that all those with sub-prime status who took out mortgages are illiterate and didn't appreciate that when you take out a loan you have to pay it back???? Have you the slightest evidence whatsoever to back up that position??? Or any of the statements you make? Has it not occurred to you that when a large number of small scale deceptions and defaults add up you have a major problem such as the sub-prime crisis? And the allegation of 'greedy'? No 'greed' on the part of those who said "Sod thbis, I can fiddle a mortgage, get a house and worry about paying for it later."??? You say bankers should be investigated for fraud. What fraud specifically? Do you actually know the meaning of the word fraud? Let me give you something that would fit the definition - falsely claiming a level of income you don't actually earn in order to deceive a lender into giving you a mortgage. THAT is fraud! You clearly have a need to engage in exactly the type of scapegoating I have discussed in order to exonerate the 'ordinary Joe' fom any sort of accountability for his/her behaviour and and THAT is plain disgraceful. You really should change your Username, you know.

Parkdrive Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Damian H > But what about the millions of 'Ordinary Joes' who > lied through their teeth to get mortgages and > cynically exploited a lax financial system to get > hands on properties they knew they could not > afford to pay for? What about them? I am sure each > of them would say they are small fry - too > insignificant to have had any impact. Yet they > lied and falisifed declarations of income > nonetheless, significantly contributing en masse > to the collapse of the sub-prime market which was > the catalyst for the global financial collapse. > > First of all why was such a lax system allowed to > be implemented? Probably because those that > implemented it thought there was money to be made > from the poor sods who saw this as the only way on > to to the property ladder. As for the comments on > here that many of us are jealous of these high > earners, yes probably. But it doesn't alter the > fact that the culture of paying people for failure > HAS to end. Are these people vilified unjustly? > Perhaps, but then I'm sure their salaries will > more then compensate for the grief and I'm sure it > goes with the territory. Parkdrive, Your response buys into exactly the scapegoating mentality that has been described and that I challenged. Effectively you are saying that the 'poor sods' are so desperate that no-one can expect them to behave honestly when they are given the opportunity to engage in a scam. This completely absolves those who lied and cheated from any moral culpability for their actions and blames those they lied to. That is absurd! It is the same mentality that says we should write-off third world debt as it's unreasonable to expect such countries to repay the loans they took out and promised to repay. It's the same mentality that says it's ok for people to shoplift from Sainsburys because its a victimless crime and Sainsburys are a b****rd corporate so they deserve it. Yes, I have no doubt that banks entered the sub-prime market in order to make money. In fact, of course they did, they are commercial organisations. That does NOT excuse the exploitation of their products by dishonest people. If we take this sort of mentality of allowing people to shrug off any responsibility for their actions and simply claim 'victim' status there are going to be consequences (apart from the obvious financial meltdown). One, if we write-off third world debt there is just about zero prospect of anyone lending these countries a penny in future. They have got out of their current obligations but have made themselves credit pariahs in the eyes of the world. In terms of sub-prime defaulters - go ahead, blame the banks and march on Wall Street. The fact is that no financial institution will touch the sub-prime market ever again so those who wanted to get on the property market will be shafted. If people act as if they cannot be held accountable or behave responsibility, if they default to 'victim' status the moment things go wrong, they will not be given responsibility (in this case that means credit opportunities). It's one reason why I can't stand this 99% movement that emerged from Occupy Wall Street. The message from that is "we, the 99%, are wonderful, decent, honest people and the 1% are villians who should be hung by their own intestines from a lamp-post." It's claptrap. I have no doubt that a great many of the 99% had their snouts in the trough as much as anyone, just on a smaller scale per individual. I have no problem with bonuses being tied to achievements - that is as it should be, but a great many people simply don't want to see bonuses to bankers AT ALL. Full stop! In terms of whether people should take vilification if they are paid enough - I don't think that is anyone's job description. People should be held reasonably accountable, certainly, whatever their level in society. When someone is used as a political football and has their property attacked as an act of scapegoating for others to conceal their culpability that is unacceptable.

Chippy Minton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How about overseeing an organisation that required > the government to pump in ?20bn to not only save > his business, but also prevent the collapse in > confidence in the entire banking system? > > How about because he oversaw a company played a > key role in the financial crisis of and helped > trigger the worst recession in the UK since the > second world war which imposed huge direct costs > on British taxpayers and businesses? > > How about because he brought the honours system > into disrepute? Well, the last of your points is, I suggest, a subjective interpretation of the first two. Is there a criteria for bringing the honours system into disrepute? Let me look at the first two anyway. The first two effectively redound to your opinion that he wasn't a very good business leader. Well, bear in mind that for many years Goodwin oversaw a remarkable growth and expansion of RBS and great shareholder returns. The collapse of RBS was brought about largely by some adventuring on their part but also macro-economic factrs that were a Perfect Storm created by others - some of whom I will name in this post. By virtue of the importance and influence of his position any mistakes that he did make were likely to have far-reaching implications - they weren't necessarily any worse than many other poor acquisitions or business mistakes - simply their scale was magnified by his position. So, do we strip honours from every business leader who has made mistakes? Simply doing the tired old stone-throwing at bankers on the grounds that they are rich and get big bonuses and we are all jealous of that (and those who deny being jealous are the most jealous of all) is scapegoating at its worst. Sure, poor and reckless banking practices played a significant role in things - so did many other factors. If you want to put a few other folk in the dock how about the Labour government that built an economic house of cards that was guaranteed to collapse at the first breeze and the appalling denial, attempted reputational self-preservation and mismanagement that typified Gordon Brown's response to the economic crisis? I have friends in finance who had been saying for many years before the economic crisis that Gordon Brown's so-called 'Economic Miracle' was all smoke-and-mirrors and that as a result some type of catastrophe was inevitable at the first sign of adversity. I assume that you will be blocking any move to honour Brown or elevate him to the House of Lords? The cheeky b****rd was happy enough to have a crack at being head of the IMF!!! Shameless!!! Let's add a few million more to the list of those indicted - many of the so-called 'victims. You may recall that much of the current global crisis (including the fortunes of ABM Amro)was triggered by the collapse of the 'sub-prime' market in the US. Who was responsible for that? Bankers designing absurdly complex products? Sure, to a degree. But what about the millions of 'Ordinary Joes' who lied through their teeth to get mortgages and cynically exploited a lax financial system to get hands on properties they knew they could not afford to pay for? What about them? I am sure each of them would say they are small fry - too insignificant to have had any impact. Yet they lied and falisifed declarations of income nonetheless, significantly contributing en masse to the collapse of the sub-prime market which was the catalyst for the global financial collapse. The only difference between them and Goodwin was the consequences of Goodwin's misjudgments were magnified by his position. And in Goodwin's case, by virtue of the nature of the organisation he ran, all his decisions and actions were out in the open and subject to public scrutiny and examination for years. Shareholders knew, politicians knew, regulators knew, the financial media and analysts knew, his fellow Board members knew, his professional peers knew...and they watched and said little and benefited when it was possible to benefit. WHen all goes to pot, of course, they are all indignant and outraged! Stalin said something along the lines of "A man killed by a cart on a Moscow street is a tragedy, a milion dead in war is a statistic." Let me rephrase that somewhat for our times - 'a million on low incomes who willfully lie to exploit the financial system are 'victims', a bank Chairman who commits no crimes but makes poor decisions is a villain and a pariah.' Let's be clear about a few things. Yes - bankers behaved foolishly and irresponsibly in many cases. While all was going well the rank and-file who now turn on them were happy enough. Shareholders were happy to see their investments perform well (and before anyone says you aren't a shareholder so it doesn't apply to you - do you have a pension? If you do, there is a fair chance that some of your pension funds were invested in major financial institutions making you a de facto beneficiary of big banking practices) and many people who had no prospect of owning their own homes before were fiddling figures left, right and centre to fradulently get mortgages. The politicians were happily basking in the glow of their 'economic miracle' and creating unsustainable and fragile economic circumstances (the equivalent of building a glass tower in an earthquake zone) without asking too many questions and hoping they would be out of power and able to blame someone else once the ground shook. When the brown stuff hit the proverbial fan, however, all these co-conspirators rushed for cover, claimed they were 'victims' or else falsely bristled with affected 'righteous indignation' and covered their own asses by sidling up alongside public opinion and casting themselves as the righteous avengers of the masses and noble conduits of public disgust. The likes of Goodwin, whose home and property, to say nothing of his reputation and character, have been attacked, is set up as an Aunt Sally to deflect attention from and salve the guilty consciences of those who have also created the catastrophe. Make Goodwin accountable for what he is accountable for, certainly, but to scapegoat him as has been done is reprehensible in my opinion. This removal of his his knighthood is just another act of vindictiveness as a mass cognitive dissonance resolving act to try and divert scrutiny from the systemic failure and culpability in what has happened. To be honest, if I was Goodwin, I wouldn't want a knighthood from a society that is so fickle and dishonest to hand them out and then claw them back in such a capricious manner. I would love to see him go to another country, somewhere with a higher standard of living, take all his money, assets and knowledge and stick a finger up to the UK.