Huguenot

You keep talking about the 'price' as if it's being set by some graduate hating Uberclass. It's not, it's just what people are willing to pay. Houses prices don't fall in an abstract sense, it's just that there aren't people willing to pay.

Arse has been around for a very long time. Probably the Hittites. Americans were the first to change the pronunication to ass, because they are. Arizona was derived from some obscure foreign language, but nobody knows which one. Could be Basque, could be native American, but best off not bothering. Arkansas was a French name, and should be treated with the disrespect that deserves. It derives from the same Sioux stem as Kansas even though it's pronounced differently. Alaska is from Aleutian Russian, meaning that it was battered by the sea. Aardvark is Dutch for earth pig, named after Mockney Piers. Annette is a French word for undescended testicles. Aquarius Moon is very unlikely to have a sensible question.

I don't want to sound disparaging, but it would seem a bit hazy? You've found a possible confession for an undisclosed crime that incriminated someone whose name you don't know 40 years ago that you speculate may live in South London? The correspondence address is a hotmail account?

The Economist used to carry on about property rights in China, until the Chinese gave property rights to a small village south of Shanghai. The majority of the male residents promptly sold the property at fractional prices (there was a glut) to a local entrepreneur and spent the cash to go and live on whisky in a slum in Shanghai. One week later three of them were dead, and all of the rest were destitute. The really stupid thing about English people is that they probably think it's 'just the chinese'. You give 3k to every Brit...

Quids, are you being deliberately daft? The parasite element is because the other countries carry the risk of the common currency (such as Greek debt) whereas we only get the upside. Sarkozy is quite within his rights to tell Euro-sceptic little Englanders to keep their opinion to themselves. UK critics are like fat ugly mouthy grannies lecturing premiership managers. You endlessly crap on in your disparagement for 'visionaries', presumably because you'd prefer to hang out in the deadbeat world of yesterday, but the truth is that your own world is a tight little ball of criticism for just about anything that anybody else does to move on. Why don't you take a risk, snooky, and tell us about your own famous plan for the future which is so clever that there will be no opportunity for people like you to throw tomatos at it? ;-)

http://www.dreamofatheme.co.uk/uploads/2/8/8/2/2882928/4234681_orig.jpg

I think it was the balance between starch and sugars that Hoddle wasn't happy with - not that beans are unhealthy. He wanted slow release carbs rather than a sugar rush. Two years later, in a mad tempestuous possibly psychotic moment Keegan overthrew the ban except for match days. Thank heavens for that...

If I remember, the expenses story was broken by the Telegraph - I find it very unlikely that the aggressively anti-Europe Telegraph would have launched this story to divert attention from Europe. You're seeing conspiracies where they don't exist. If anything the electorate is currently being swindled by the anti-Europe faction (mainly bigotted right wing geriatrics) who are trying to deliberately and disingenuously conflate problems with the single currency with the repatriation of human rights legislation. Anyone who think's that pulling out of Europe now is going to do anything but create massive economic disaster is a complete f**king idiot.

Better than paying welfare, and incentivises private money to deliver public benefits. I'm not sure the bankruptcy rules are intended as a punishment, more because (as crazy as this sounds) I've come across carpet baggers out here who leach investors, run up huge company debts for personal gain, close it and do the same again.

The world's economists would be on your side with most of that DJKQ. I think the banks should be written off, and a public fund for entrepreneurship should be made available which would match 1:1 funds attracted by private investors (to get the risk right).

Your initial premise is wrong taper - the principle rationale is economic, the political element only influenced the rate of sign-up (and in the case of Greece probably too soon). The fixed exchange rates allow import and export companies (typically over 50% of GDP) to predict market values for both resources and services without the instability of multiple currency exchange rates. This allows and attracts inward investment and generates growth - this should be considered in multiples of 100s of percent. For smaller companies (currently 51% of GDP in the UK), trading across multiple currencies either meant holding large cash reserves in each currency (of unpredictable value that might not be needed) or potentially losing as much as 40% of your reserves to currency exchange fees if you trade across 10 or more European countries. Holding large cash reserves in foreign currency would put SMEs out of business. Once more for small companies, the cost of accounting in multiple currencies is very high - I do it myself, and estimate that it costs me around 5% to 10% of my income every year. Once the Eurozone appeared it was less important for UK to get involved, mainly because the Eurozone itself massively reduced all these costs to British companies because there was only one Euro. For this reason European nations often see British companies as parasites upon the risks taken by European countries. So sanctimonious prigs like Cameron, and others poo-pooing the Euro whilst reaping its benefits often get told to 'shut up I'm sick of your voice' by European politicians ;-)

Jeremy, so far as I know there is no substantiated theory or balance of evidence that suggests private ownership is inherently more efficient than public ownership. The IMF and the World Bank don't think so either. Not only this, but because costs of borrowing are higher for private rather than public initiatives, private has to be considerably more efficient than public ownership for it to work. However, I do think that public ownership can become unwieldy when too much power in the hierarchy is concentrated in the hands of managers (politicians) selected on short term contracts for their electability rather than capability. If you did that in any business you'd shut it down might quick. There's also evidence that suggests that it was the restructuring of Britain's national industries in the 80s and 90s that lead to productivity improvements there - not the privatistion itself. It's anyone's guess as to whether these businesses could have restructured had they not been due for privatisation.

I agree Jeremy, I just don't understand why some people are trying to putting an arbitrary European slant on this. Baltimore to Washington (30 miles) http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRfypAed0TPjBcLd-TYJDILPF70HE-WogATC7H4I1XAAX0fAjfxXghttp://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRFOHBJgUthCFfgCi8tDdgYIWrTZTs9dvDjlMG2aRRt5YSL2oQk Athens to London (1,500 miles) http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRP9M_h-1DcvdX68IIkwdq4MyIytfjnb8msOhYPV84iZkhaRkkAzghttp://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRmo6sQ2k4ZCnN0kA9_hjSkpyzaEEceZT8vqjw0XNQreV3Cari_

There seems to be terrific confusion here over challenges with the single currency, and whether those challenges are responsible for economic difficulties in Europe. Quids seems unaware that the UK is not part of the Eurozone, yet is undergoing economic challenges, austerity budgets and debates over taxation of its own. We have our own riots and protestors camped out in the capital's streets. No clearer evidence is needed that it is not membership of the Euro creating these challenges, but macro economic conditions. Greece is suffering the worst because of a series of overspending governments and poor taxation administration. The fact that Germany is not suffering the same woes is all the evidence you need that it is not the Euro that created these problems, but the Greek government. Yes the Greeks had access to cheaper credit to fuel the binge, but had they not they would simply have suffered the austerity conditions and social unrest earlier down the line - but they would have suffered anyway. It was not the Euro that created this situation. Historically the Greeks would probably have solved this through devaluation - which meant that instead of cutting government expenditure they simply cut the value of the currency, making everybody poorer. You can't do this within the Euro, and hence the 'problem'. Whatever happens, as usual the political problems get solved, and it's not the END OF THE WORLD because of foreigners. As for 'bailing out' foreginers, this is an antiquated nationalist sentiment that reflects the view of a minority. As I've said before, and I'll say again - I don't know anybody in Ripon, but that didn't mean that when living in the UK I blamed them for Lonodon's woes and refused to pay my taxes. Why should the Greeks be any different? We live in a globalised eocnomy, and barricading the doors and overinflating fears about foreigners creating economic crisis is the stuff of the Mail.

Instructions for removing individual cookies...

Benidorm. For a laugh. But it wasn't at all.

Sue, you've been flagged in what's called a 'behavioural retargeting' campaign. Basically what happened was that your visit to the JL site dropped a 'cookie' (a small bit of code) into your web browser as a record of that visit. When you visit another site, the site 'interrogates' your store of cookies as it uploads the page, and notes that the JL one is there and serves you the appropriate ad. You can get rid of this by going to your tools or options menu and select something like 'clear history' which will give you the option of deleting cookies. However, do note that this will also cause your browser to 'forget' all the other sites and passwords too - so it means you'll need to log in to things like the EDF again. BTW, without the ads, you wouldn't have the sites, they're what pays for them - so it pays to be a bit more understanding ;-)

Erm.... Taxation in SG is very progressive, just not substantial. Wasn't my choice anyhow, just seems to work quite well. Gonna have to check whether Scandis spend wisely. Last time I checked there was a political rebellion about siding with the Krauts, or anyone in Europe. Great if you've changed your mind. Neither society believes in redistribution of wealth or property.

I think normally 'social justice' is threefold - demands for progressive taxation play a part, but as with many arguments in the UK it's principally imported inappropriately from US bulletin boards. Taxation in the US is demonstrably less progressive than in the UK, and so the focus loses its validity when it's applied to the UK where welfare, health and education play a very egalitarian role in society. Conversely, 'social justice' is also heavily reliant on redistribution of wealth and property, something rarely pursued by successful communities as it disempowers the individual in favour of the state. This has a failure rate so high that it's frankly surprising that any remotely educated adult would espouse it. However, the idea was supported by John Rawls, who was notable for other very bright ideas such as equality in the eyes of the law, and democratic consensus. Most of these ideas were evidently agreeable, and at the time he was fighting 1950s and 60s American extremist politics. So I prefer to think the redistribution of wealth and property was the product of his age, and leans toward a revolutionary fringe that doesn't seem so valid today. Mainly though, it's another boring American idea that's inappropriate for an essentially socialist UK society. I do note though, that Rawls thought humanity to be both reasonable and rational - something that UDT would probably not agree with - so he'd be an unwilling bed partner to UDT's foil hat defensiveness.

Realistically it needs inflation to outstrip house prices to devalue them again: quantitative easing isn't funny money it's practical devaluation, I suspect it's faux grief from the Bank of England to be at 5%. The trick is to make it in a controlled environment. If quantitative easing causes a crash in consumer confidence you end up with a market stripped of the incentive to trade. Loosening up the housing market will take something more than devaluation - it'll take a massive increase in new house building, and a decrease in the advantage delivered to second house buyers through tax breaks (a reduction in demand from those who are least needy). If you see a simultaneous reduction in the credit multiples you end up with massive negative equity, and a militant proletariat crying foul at being deliberately targeted by the money markets when it comes to property ownership - that means a breakdown in social cohesion. Doing any of that without banking regulation is a recipe for repeat of the current crisis, but if you over regulate the banks you dry up money supply and crash employment. It's such a dainty track to tread - and the populist approach is to simply burn the house down.

There you go ibilly99 - all so much revolutionary populism. I'd prefer the more rational observation that no sensible human would knowingly make themselves pariahs - it's far more likely that it was a cumulative series of actions that each seemed reasonable at the time ended up in a system that was vulnerable to abuse. I had a gambler in the family - and I'm familiar with how a series of small actions can lead to positively catastrophic consequences without any ill will or mailce aforethought. "they knew or should have known the consequences of their actions" That's kind of the point - there's a whole world of difference in those two approaches - one is criminal, the other is negligent. Negligence relies upon the predictability of the outcome - which you've quoted Mervyn King as describing as unprecedented: unprecedented means, well you know, not predictable. That doesn't mean I'm saying there was no wrong doing - I'm just saying that guilt should be carried appropriately and in proportion. After that, I tend to agree with Jeremy, and take SJ's point. However, I can also see most of the solutions in regulation, and recognise that international agreement takes time. It's take its time because its difficult, not because there's no lack of will.

I agree that the banks did dodgy deals, stuck their head in the sand when problems started to grow, and looked out for themselves when it was all going to hell. It's inconsistent how these days we tend to see characters like Nick Leeson as victims of circumstance when they only take the bank down, but as marauding psychotics when they take the system down. However, there was an inevitability about it all when the prices started rocketing and the population started wanting to be fed... "you do know that generally we prioritise the pushers rather than the addicts right" I think you've nailed it here, an entire nation positioning themselves as victims. I don't think greed is the same as addiction.

Is that called 'jumping the shark'?

ibilly99, if you've decided you're gonna have a hate figure, you've got plenty to choose from - just don't try and pretend it's rational. Modern populism: an ideology that "...pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous ?others? who are together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity, and voice" (Daniele Albertazzi and Duncan McDonnell, Twenty-First Century Populism) They couldn't have said it better. The people who caused this crisis were on this forum, leveraging house after house to feed their property craze. They were ridiculing those with a more tempered view as they single handedly sought to dirve price and deprive their neighbours children of the capacity to buy a house in their lifetime. They remortgaged their houses to buy flash cars that their incomes couldn't support. And they want to blame the bankers? Tcha!! And until people start recognising their own role in the situation - a gluttonous world of Alan Dales (see EDF passim) exhorting that we're all stupid for not getting on his buy-to-let frenzy - then there's no hope of finding a solution.

People allow their envy of financiers to cloud their judgment. A unilateral regulation of the UK's financial markets will make them uncompetitive - and we are massively reliant on the financial industry for the health of our nation. If you think there's a recession now, I wouldn't care to guess what a disaster we'd have if we let knee jerk responses to overpaid paper pushers ruin our economy. This whole thing about 'debt' is a massive red herring. UK Plc is suffering massive debt because the government spent money they didn't have. It's got nothing to do with the banks. Likewise personal debt is fuelled by greed and ambition, not by the banks. Debt is created when society tries to extract value from resources before they have been earned. That's the real 'debt' our children will carry - that we've asset stripped the globe to satisfy our greed. That's not the fault of the banks, but of ourselves. Blaming the banks is like trying to blame farmers because you ate so much you puked. If we don't want our children to be paying off our debts then we have to pay them off ourselves. If these protestors want to find a scapegoat the first place to look is in the mirror, not Paternoster Square.