Occupy London

[Amoeba]

Changing the tack somewhat, I wonder how other religions would react to a group of protesters obstructing access to worship?

[ibilly99]

Been twice and talked to quite a few of the protestors - really nice bunch - keep the place spotlessly clean and if you could crystallise their demands then it would be we are in the worst economic depression in modern history (c Mervyn King who actually said ever )the educated young have massive debts , virtually no job or house prospects or a viable stake in a fair society and they've had enough and not a single senior banker has walked the walk yet for the chaos they have caused whilst yob rioters are quite rightly doing time. They knew what they were doing - it was as the Oscar winning move says an

.

as does the Telegraph.

If you can do go and visit and engage even if you want to disagree with what they are saying.

[maxxi]

Er... guys?... I think we've been infiltrated...

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQzIY6yyPwUHkWtfH04q49Kicd-MlLcdPAkxznWf2JutTG8rciUuw

[wee quinnie]

To all the people saying "Why don't they just go away and do something useful?" - in all seriousness, what sort of thing do you think they should be doing?

The problem with protest, is that usually, in order for protesters to raise consciousness, get on TV/in the papers - there has to be a HUGE presence OR there has to be some element of "protesters" engaging in acts of civil disorder. Furthermore, when there is a large gothy-looking contingent...it does seem to alienate middle England.

[Lost Yorkshire Man]

Heard on the radio this morning that infra-red cameras show only 10% of the tents are occupied during the night. Either they're getting friendly with their neighbours or they are going home on a evening.

And who can blame them......It's getting a bit parky on an evening

[Huguenot]

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.

[Parkdrive]

Amoeba Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Changing the tack somewhat, I wonder how other

> religions would react to a group of protesters

> obstructing access to worship?

Indeed, say for example the Regents Park mosque?

[Huguenot]

Is that called 'jumping the shark'?

[StraferJack]

Huguenot - whilst I agree on the shared responsibility thing (and have argued many times about , you do know that generally we prioritise the pushers rather than the addicts right?

Anyway, a bank's main priority when lending money is to ASSESS the propriety of a loan, not just give it to whover is dumb enough to ask. That's their job. And they failed. And that failure had serious consequences

What we do with that info is arguable, but let's not get too defensive about banks please

[StraferJack]

As for Amoeba's point - people obstructing access to a place of worship - there was no problem getting access to St Pauls at any point

[Huguenot]

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.

[StraferJack]

see, with hyperbole like "a whole nation" you overplay the hand

There are millions of people who have spent decades being careful with money. If quids was reading he would take issue with my stance but on this at least we would agree

That so many people got greedy is inarguable. But let's not forget they were encouraged to do so

And even now, years into the mire, we have the basic message that to raise an eybrow at wealth is just being "jealous". So do people do what they think they can get away with to get wealthy or not? Are they "right" or "wrong".

Of course it was all unearned income and yadda yadda - but once again, the checks and balances in place to prevent such idiocy were overridden by the gatekeepers. The people who earn the big money - the big money they earn to prevent such calamity

For that alone, they are the main culprits.

"I don't think greed is the same as addiction."

I like this.. it's snappy. Is it true tho'...

[Jeremy]

There were/are several problems... large LTV ratios, subprime lending, mechanisms for lenders to offload the mortgages into the markets, unrealistic credit ratings, inadequate risk mangement, highly leveraged banks with insufficient cash reserves... the punters can take joint responsibility for borrowing money, but that doesn't change the fact that there's something rather wrong with the whole system.

Saying that, people have to realise that a lot of people working in banking (both "bankers" and the majority who work in support roles) have lost their jobs too. Most of which are no more responsible for this crisis than the proverbial man-on-the-street.

[StraferJack]

"

Saying that, people have to realise that a lot of people working in banking (both "bankers" and the majority who work in support roles) have lost their jobs too. Most of which are no more responsible for this crisis than the proverbial man-on-the-street."

absolutely true. But I don't think when "people" give out about "the banks" they are being so personal - I believe they are complaining about the system

[Jeremy]

I'm not so sure about that!

[StraferJack]

well if Huguenot can tar a whole nation as greedy, I guess people can tar all bankers in the same fashion

I get grief from people for working at a bank, but never real grief - it's always the dumb "oh yeah ? you owe me money mate" type of nonsense

No-one actually thinks I'm rich, get huge bonuses or caused any crisis. I'm sure those people do exist but then they probably believe in all kinds of other nonsense

[ibilly99]

In 2005 I was saying this was all going to end in tears it was obvious to anybody who opened their eyes and used their commonsense - not to the politicos or the bankers though as they cheerleaded through new highs and blew the bubble ever higher - Hugenot whilst Joe Public may have basked in their new found illusory wealth most had neither the time or inclination to see what was really going on - a small elite owned the system , bought the legislature and devised the products that have frankly blown up the global economy - they knew or should have known the consequences of their actions - to date they have only had their wrists slapped and are still cashing out their wealth either with golden handshake retirement pots or continuing bonuses. The Telegraph article is particuarly pertinent to the middle class ghetto that ED is becoming - wake up to the fact that the super rich have shafted you and your children.

Now that the top one per cent own around a quarter of the wealth ? or to put it another way, now that the top 25 per cent own three quarters of the wealth, with the middle class scrabbling around for the crumbs; now that the rich are getting richer, and everyone else is getting poorer; now that the underclass is smouldering away, ready to smash our windows and steal our stuff; now that our jobs are going and our mortgages are hanging by a thread ? it seems to me that pretty much nobody is middle class {/b}.

That?s how it?s been for most of history, and that?s how it is even now, across most of the world. There?s the rich, and then there?s the rest.

Hats off to Occupy London - now I'm off to take them some food and sustenance and pass on the good wishes and otherwise of East Dulwich whilst sleeping in my comfortable warm middle class bed like the good hypocrite I am.

[StraferJack]

Let's take a trip back to 5 years* ago with ibilly when he/she first joined the forum

uncanny prediction

it is odd isn't it, walking up a Lordship Lane devoid of estate agents

* well 4 and a bit years

[Huguenot]

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.

[ibilly99]

Strafer Jack - I couldn't have predicted 225billion or nearabouts of funny money being pushed into the system and near 0 interest rates - the market correction that should happen would be welcome by most of the young methinks - and even myself as a homeowner so I stand by my comments at the time.

BTW -even the Pope blames it on the Banks

In material goods markets, natural factors and productive capacity as well as labour in all of its many forms set quantitative limits by determining relationships of costs and prices which, under certain conditions, permit an efficient allocation of available resources.

In monetary and financial markets, however, the dynamics are quite different. In recent decades, it was the banks that extended credit, which generated money, which in turn sought a further expansion of credit. In this way, the economic system was driven towards an inflationary spiral that inevitably encountered a limit in the risk that credit institutions could accept. They faced the ultimate danger of bankruptcy, with negative consequences for the entire economic and financial system.

[StraferJack]

"It's take its time because its difficult, not because there's no lack of will."

I want to believe that - I do...

Unfortunately all i ever see when regulation is mentioned, are banks and bankers saying it will cripple them/ send their best bankers abroad/ some other excuse

So what I'm inclined to think is the will is not there. I admit I could be wrong

There is a public show of will - all the while knowing that if market x or y proposes something, market z will say "come here, base yourself here, don't worry about those regulations"

And of course legally, those companies are required to do that - legally they HAVE to return the best dividend they can (in the short term.. long term thinking is neither possible or desirable in this space)

[StraferJack]

ibilly - please don't quote the pope as a measure of truth in anything. It scares me

as for house prices.. well ... do people want them higher or lower. Do markets want them higher or lower? Do banks want them higher or lower?

Everything else is deemed better if the price is lower... but houses...?

[ibilly99]

Ask any renter maybe ?

[StraferJack]

I don't think house prices going up is a good thing - I'm saying I don't understand why so many people seem to think it is.

Objectively I mean

[ibilly99]

There should be a Godwin's Law for the mentioning of house prices. I just wish the younger generation could have partaken in the property owning class as much as I have my first studio was 15k on an income of 8k and I've hated the boom and all it meant - a fair price for mine would be half of what it's currently worth - the society that would have resulted would be much more to my taste than the spiv, get rich quick - boom and bust society we've got. Most of Occupy London would settle for a decent job and a chance to live in a reasonable place - preferably their own - they are mostly resolutely middle class in this respect.