Fred Goodwin...sir

[indiepanda]

Whilst I am all for individuals accepting some personal responsibility for their financial decisions I think the banks were sailing close to the wind and have no real excuse for not realizing it.

Lending people 125% of the value of the house they are buying or 5, 6 times their salary is just irresponsible and helped to fuel the housing boom.

[Otta]

I don't think anyone is suggesting the banks are the innocents, just that individuals also need to hold their hands up if they fraudulently obtained a mortgage that they never should have had.

To acknowledge that doesn't mean you're saying all the bankers were innocents.

[woodrot]

I hate to say this, but the bankers are an easy target. True, their sole purpose is to make money, but this ejaculation of indignation towards them is at best populist knee jerkery, at worst, self deception. Look at the mutual tugfest of property related backslappery on this forum of a few years back.

Those delighful extentsions to your property paid for by borrowing, the explosion of in yer face ostsntatious consumption that characterises the early part of this century, the virus of expensive nick nackery retail cookwankery outlets that fester along the bustling Lordship Lane - these may be a direct consequence of the availability of cheap money, but most of us have enough common sense to make a decision as to whether we feel pressurised to participate or not. Sadly,we are paying for your excesses. Calling for the head of Fred or any other financier will not make amends for the reckless BTL, Ipod fetishment and expensive holidays that many enjoyed. We remember the bad times, but convieniently forget the long periods of relative wealth between these blips.

shit smeared comparisions between terrorists and drug dealers devalue whatever point you may be pushing.

If you willingly participated, get some backbone and accept it. Sometimes, it is not someone elses fault

[Huguenot]

Those were the days when Snorky roamed the Earth at will, and Alan Dale raved about the free money to be made with 110% mortgages, $30,000 cashback and ripping off students...

[Damian H]

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.

[Damian H]

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.

[El Pibe]

Woodrot is often right, but i've never heard him described as reasonable before ;)

[Huguenot]

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.

[Damian H]

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?

[El Pibe]

I think a woolly 'its not what you think' with a vague dose of the former.

[Undisputedtruth]

Damian H Wrote:

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

>

> Since I am not a banker,

That will explain your lack of understanding in the finanancial crisis. There are many newspaper articles and TV documentaries highlighting the fact that these 'Ordinary Joes' were the real victims of the financial crisis. Sorry Damian, you really need to do your research on this one. All what you've done is telling me you don't know what you're talking about.

@Hugo,

Telling lies again. I said before on this forum that I don't support 911 conspiracy theories. My view of the bankers stemmed from the early 90s where I've learned most of them are pretty much incompetant. Most fund managers fail to beat the FTSE 100 index yet people prefer to invest in their products despite the high management fees. Bankers are not deserving of their high salaries or bonuses.

@woodrot

There are some parts I agree with and in particular mainstream decision on financial matters where I think the real problem is a lack of financial awareness and an overreliance on marketing materials. Furthermore, people should have greater understanding of architectural issues and history before embarking on monstrous extensions.

However, where we disagree is whether the 'Ordinary Joes' were responsible for the financial crisis. Now if you read this article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/2785403/Ninja-loans-explode-on-sub-prime-frontline.html then you can clearly see that these ordinary people were victims and not outright fraudsters as depicted by Damian.

[Damian H]

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?

[maxxi]

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

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

All what you've done is telling me you don't know what

> you're talking about.

>

An eloquence Ernie Wise would be proud of.

[Undisputedtruth]

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.

[Otta]

UDT, why are you not filthy rich?

[Huguenot]

Because he's very very clever... ;-)

[Damian H]

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.

[Undisputedtruth]

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.

[*Bob*]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> Because he's very very clever... ;-)

I think it's like in 'Superman'.. it is forbidden for him to interfere with human history.

[Damian H]

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]

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.

[Damian H]

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]

More don't any better' talk, Damian. Extremely dull. Better use your time and do some more research.

[Damian H]

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.

[Huguenot]

Given UDT's implacable insistence that banking, more specifically fractional reserve banking, is intrinsically fraudulent, one thing that has bugged me since he first started posting on the subject is what precisely he thinks is the alternative.

Given that the majority of human endeavour is based on speculative activity with a future return (I'll pay you when it works), and that opportunities by definition are an addition to existing capacity, we will always be borrowing in excess of existing equity.

How also does he propose that we apply Darwinian concepts to the opportunities proposed (i.e. we make sure that only the really good ideas get investment) unless we make the 'borrowers' responsible for the failures.

I really don't think UDT has an answer, and until he does his comments are a whinge, not an argument.