The prudent have been paying for imprudent
Robert Henderson
beginning of this crash. Those without mortgagees, both those who own
outright and those who rent, are paying through depressed wages, lower
benefits, reduced public services and the long term debt caused by the
excesses of the past 12 years. Those who are being subsidised are the
people who took out massive mortgages, often by the straightforward
fraud of exaggerating their incomes, and/or ran up vast debts by drawing
on the equity in their homes. The heaviest losers are those who have
never owned a house outright or had a mortgage. They have gained nothing
during the property boom and have had every rising rents inflicted upon
them as property prices inflated unconscionably. RH
Telegraph
Nine million savers see 'severe drop' in income
More than nine million savers have seen a “severe" drop in their
income since the Bank of England cut interest rates to their lowest
level exactly one year ago, it has been disclosed.
By Myra Butterworth, Personal Finance Correspondent
Published: 7:30AM GMT 04 Mar 2010
It is equivalent to one in five Britons, according to the research by
campaign group Save Our Savers. During the past year, savers have been
hit by “pitiful” interest rates, it said. The reduction in rates
means many savers no longer receive a real return on their money once
inflation and tax is taken into account.
Almost three quarters Britons said savers are not given a fair deal,
while nine out of 10 said there has been too much encouragement to
borrow.
--
Robert Henderson
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Nickname unavailable
> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 15:13:02 +0000, Robert Henderson
>
> <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >Note: The prudent have been subsidising the imprudent since the
> >beginning of this crash.
>
> the financiers. Those who bundled CDOs and CDSs, and the regulators
> who didn't do their job.
>
> They are the ones who evaporated trillions of dollars of savings and
> assets.
>
last night iceland said we are sovereign, no more bailouts for milton
freidmanism. the milton friedmanites belong in jail, and or mental
institutions.
> _________
>
> "Two novels can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord
> of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often
> engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading
> to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to
> deal with the real world. The other involves orcs."
The gods have made us mad
"Robert Henderson" <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:lnEI3xU+...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> Note: The prudent have been subsidising the imprudent since the beginning
> of this crash. Those without mortgagees, both those who own outright and
> those who rent, are paying through depressed wages, lower benefits,
> reduced public services and the long term debt caused by the excesses of
> the past 12 years. Those who are being subsidised are the people who took
> out massive mortgages, often by the straightforward fraud of exaggerating
> their incomes, and/or ran up vast debts by drawing on the equity in their
> homes. The heaviest losers are those who have never owned a house outright
> or had a mortgage. They have gained nothing during the property boom and
> have had every rising rents inflicted upon them as property prices
> inflated unconscionably. RH
> Telegraph
i know of at least three cases where families have been ejected from their
homes by Northern Rock, after the bank had ignored government instructions
to only use repossession as a measure of last resort.
In one case the family had a 100% mortgage on a very modest terraced
property that had, some six years ago, had been valued at £90,000.
The valuer was a friend of the seller, who was the families landlord.
Pressure was exerted on the family to buy the property, or receive notice to
quit.
Ordinarily, the family would not really have been 'mortgage material'' - but
the owner (who was also a Financial Advisor) rigged up the 100% loan with
Northern Rock, doubtless assisted by his Surveyor mate's valuation.
The mortgage started off a a very low 'promotional deal' rate that lasted
for 3 years. During that time, all payments were met in full, and on time.
After 3 years the rate shot up - increasing the monthly payment from about
£500 to about £850. Still, the family managed to fund it - but were forced
to borrow on credit cards and an overdraft in order to live.
Then the husband was made redundant. His wife was still working, and
although they had two young children, they still managed to pay Northern
Rock. However, this was helped by some doorstep loans and also by a
whopping £30,000 second charge on the house provided by Picture Loans.
They surveyor who acted for Picture assured them that their house was now
worth £145,000 - not bad after only three years or so.....
So Picture lavished the 30K on the family, and for a while that handy sum
kept the wolves from the door.
Eventually, the inevitable happened and the family began to buckle under the
strain of repayments and high interest rates. The husband found himself in
and out of work, temporary jobs paying minimum wage, all 'here today, gone
tomorrow'
They were not yet in arrears with Northern Rock, and came to a arrangement
that allowed them to pay half the contracted monthly amount.
Three months before a five year deadline that would have freed them from
'early settlement' penalties with Northern Rock, the bank moved for
repossession - despite still receiving their 50% monthly payment.
It was all done and dusted within weeks, and the family were out.
The house was empty for a few months pending sale - during which time NR
charged £5,000 for 'gardening' and 'maintenance'!
When the house sold, NR duly totted up the outstanding amount, and then
added £18,000 'penalty fees' because the family had ended their mortgage
'early' (ie. NR had kicked them out before the expiry of the 5 year penalty
period)
So, now, no-one will get a penny piece - not NR, not Picture, not the fat
creature who runs Provident doorstep loans - no-one!
They are about to be made bankrupt, and will walk away from the mess created
by the greed of the dishonest parasites who deliberately led them into ruin.
And I say, good for them!
abelard
>On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 15:13:02 +0000, Robert Henderson
><phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Note: The prudent have been subsidising the imprudent since the
>>beginning of this crash.
>Let's be clear who the truly "imprudent" were. The banks, the brokers,
>the financiers. Those who bundled CDOs and CDSs, and the regulators
>who didn't do their job.
>
>They are the ones who evaporated trillions of dollars of savings and
>assets.
i like you dopes with your convenient scapegoats
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nickname unavailable
> On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 09:14:06 -0800, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
> >On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 15:13:02 +0000, Robert Henderson
> ><phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>Note: The prudent have been subsidising the imprudent since the
> >>beginning of this crash.
> >Let's be clear who the truly "imprudent" were. The banks, the brokers,
> >the financiers. Those who bundled CDOs and CDSs, and the regulators
> >who didn't do their job.
>
> >They are the ones who evaporated trillions of dollars of savings and
> >assets.
>
> i like you dopes with your convenient scapegoats
milton friedmans neo-liberalism is at the core of europes problems,
and his darlings of iceland, ireland, eastern europe allowed a
deregulated financial sector to run wild:the European Union encouraged
financial deregulation
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ann-pettifor/icelands-referendum---at_b_488157.html
Ann Pettifor
New Economist, Author, "Debtonation - The Coming First World Debt
Crisis"
Posted: March 5, 2010 06:00 PM
Iceland's Referendum -- At Last the People Can Choose
By Ann Pettifor and Jeremy Smith, Advocacy International.
The people of Iceland have a deep democratic tradition. In Saturday's
referendum they have the opportunity to assert their sovereignty and
autonomy.
Their leadership and example will encourage people in other
democracies to reject harsh cuts in public services and living
standards made at the behest of the very people and institutions --
the bankers and the regulators -- responsible for the crisis.
For through the wholesale nationalization of private losses, we are
all -- not only in Iceland -- asked to pay the price of private,
reckless risk-taking.
The Sorry Saga So Far
It all dates back to October 2008 when the Icelandic bank, Landsbanki,
collapsed, and the British and Dutch governments decided to bail out
their own citizens who had savings in Landsbanki.
They then turned to the Icelandic government and demanded
reimbursement. Under European law, each country must have a
compensation scheme (up to a defined limit) for when a bank goes bust.
But no one had envisaged -- or funded for -- a large-scale meltdown
such as occurred in Iceland. So Iceland's (private law) Fund couldn't
pay up.
There follows a long saga of the British and Dutch trying to force the
Icelanders to accept a retrospective "loan" on harsh and one-sided
terms, so that they can get a sovereign guarantee from the Icelandic
government to enforce it!
The terms would impose a new debt burden of 12,000 Euros per Icelander
(man, woman and child). The Financial Times rightly calls their
tactics 'bullying' -- they include blocking new aid from the IMF and
others unless Iceland accepts the terms.
And that is what the referendum is about -- whether to authorise the
government of Iceland to give a sovereign guarantee that come hell or
high water, the British and Dutch will be repaid -- including high,
profiteering rates of interest.
And without the Dutch and British sharing a single Euro of the burden.
Co-Responsibility
A key principle in resolving the dispute is co-responsibility.
Iceland's President Grimmson has made a similar point, referring to "a
shared international responsibility."
The previous Icelandic government allowed a deregulated financial
sector to run wild. The subsequent collapse of Iceland's banking
sector was not a sudden bolt from the blue. The risks were visible and
widely reported. And the deposit guarantee scheme was totally under-
resourced to deal with a systemic meltdown.
So Iceland cannot escape some share of political responsibility for
the Icesave fiasco.
But Iceland was far from alone in this negligence. The political
establishments of Britain and the Netherlands -- indeed, those of the
European Union and EEA as a whole -- encouraged financial deregulation
and a more extensive Single Market in financial services, without
almost any regard for the wholly predictable risks of large-scale
economic failure.
Not a Sovereign Debt Crisis
The British and Dutch governments have, by political sleight of hand,
given the world the impression that this is an issue of sovereign debt
default.
This is quite false. It is a crisis of EU regulatory failure, and of
the Anglo-American economic model.
The British and Dutch governments chose, for understandable reasons,
to compensate domestic Icesavers whose deposits were at risk. They did
this without consulting the government of Iceland. But from the start,
they used economic and political force majeure to try to place the
whole burden of compensation on to the state and people of Iceland.
Only retrospectively, and through duress, was an agreement made with
Iceland's Depositors and Investors Guarantee Fund to compensate the
British and Dutch governments for the cost of bailing out their own
citizens.
This retroactive arm-twisting is now defined as a loan contract - even
though the "loan" was not contracted at the outset by the borrower,
but forced on it by the "lenders". And the UK and Dutch governments'
fiercely desired, but missing, link of an onerous sovereign guarantee
is still.... missing!
The terms
The proposed interest rate of 5.5% is particularly unfair, and
contains a large element of profiteering, given that the UK's
Financial Services Compensation Service has, according to the UK
Treasury, "financed its payout [to UK depositors] through a loan from
the Bank of England."
The Treasury does not disclose the rate of interest on this loan -- a
rate over which it had absolute discretion. The Bank of England's base
rate is today 0.5% (1.5% in January, 2009). The ECB's base rate was
2.0% in January 2009, yet the Netherlands government had even greater
audacity in seeking, initially, interest at 6.7%!
What Are the Strategic Options for Iceland and Its People?
One option in the referendum is for Iceland to accept the proposal
based on force majeure, to pay the full price demanded (cuts in public
services, unemployment, widespread emigration...) and hope to slowly
rebuild the fabric of the Icelandic economy. However this strategy
will make recovery and reconstruction in the short run well nigh
impossible.
And in the long run, as JM Keynes argued, we are all dead!
All other options would be enhanced by a strong rejection of the UK/
Dutch proposal, since the bigger the turnout for a 'no' vote, the
stronger Iceland's negotiating position will be, whichever option is
adopted.
The dispute could be referred to the courts, to arbitration or
(preferably) mediation. It is a striking feature of the story so far
that the UK and Dutch governments have gone to great lengths to avoid
legal resolution of the dispute, despite the Icelandic government's
constant denial of legal liability.
This may be sensible, since the 1994 Directive is badly drafted, and
the outcome unpredictable for all.
Winning Hearts and Minds
After the referendum it will be vital that the government and people
of Iceland inform and win over public and official opinion in Britain
and the Netherlands, and the EU.
To date, the issues have not been clearly explained to the British and
Dutch publics. As a result, the two governments are under little
public pressure to change their strong-arm tactics.
The voices of the Icelandic government and of Icelandic civil society
need to be heard more loudly in more targeted campaigns in the UK, the
Netherlands and EU. Coming general elections in both countries will
make this difficult in the short-term, but in the long-term the
Icelandic position is bound to prevail -- if put across coherently.
Now is the time to spread more understanding of the issues -- the
shared responsibility, the flawed and excessive nature of UK and Dutch
government demands, their impact on ordinary Icelandic citizens, and
the positive ideas and proposals that emerge as a result of democratic
debate in Iceland.
In this way we can lay the foundation for a just resolution of the
dispute.
And maybe, just maybe, the message from Iceland may be heard by
ordinary citizens in other, larger nations, being told they have to
make huge sacrifices to pay for the recklessness of bankers and the
failures of look-the-other-way "regulators". We, the people will
decide!
Democracy -- now, there's a radical idea...
> --
> web site atwww.abelard.org- news comment service, logic, economics
abelard
<Vid...@tcq.net> wrote:
>On Mar 7, 11:39�am, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 09:14:06 -0800, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>> >On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 15:13:02 +0000, Robert Henderson
>> ><phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >>Note: The prudent have been subsidising the imprudent since the
>> >>beginning of this crash.
>> >Let's be clear who the truly "imprudent" were. The banks, the brokers,
>> >the financiers. Those who bundled CDOs and CDSs, and the regulators
>> >who didn't do their job.
>>
>> >They are the ones who evaporated trillions of dollars of savings and
>> >assets.
>>
>> i like you dopes with your convenient scapegoats
>
>
>milton friedmans neo-liberalism is at the core of europes problems,
and you have a scapegoat as well..how sweet...
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
Nickname unavailable
> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 09:44:49 -0800 (PST), Nickname unavailable
>
>
>
> <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
> >On Mar 7, 11:39 am, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 09:14:06 -0800, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
> >> >On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 15:13:02 +0000, Robert Henderson
> >> ><phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> >>Note: The prudent have been subsidising the imprudent since the
> >> >>beginning of this crash.
> >> >Let's be clear who the truly "imprudent" were. The banks, the brokers,
> >> >the financiers. Those who bundled CDOs and CDSs, and the regulators
> >> >who didn't do their job.
>
> >> >They are the ones who evaporated trillions of dollars of savings and
> >> >assets.
>
> >> i like you dopes with your convenient scapegoats
>
> >milton friedmans neo-liberalism is at the core of europes problems,
>
> and you have a scapegoat as well..how sweet...
>
you mean i told the truth, and you do not like it. you must work in
the financial industry. parasites never like being exposed. if they
are exposed, it means no more free lunches, and must accept
responsibility for their existent's:)
>
>
> >and his darlings of iceland, ireland, eastern europe allowed a
> >deregulated financial sector to run wild:the European Union encouraged
> >financial deregulation
>
> >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ann-pettifor/icelands-referendum---at_b...
> >> web site atwww.abelard.org-news comment service, logic, economics
abelard
<Vid...@tcq.net> wrote:
>On Mar 7, 11:51�am, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 09:44:49 -0800 (PST), Nickname unavailable
>>
>>
>>
>> <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>> >On Mar 7, 11:39 am, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 09:14:06 -0800, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>> >> >On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 15:13:02 +0000, Robert Henderson
>> >> ><phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >> >>Note: The prudent have been subsidising the imprudent since the
>> >> >>beginning of this crash.
>> >> >Let's be clear who the truly "imprudent" were. The banks, the brokers,
>> >> >the financiers. Those who bundled CDOs and CDSs, and the regulators
>> >> >who didn't do their job.
>>
>> >> >They are the ones who evaporated trillions of dollars of savings and
>> >> >assets.
>>
>> >> i like you dopes with your convenient scapegoats
>>
>> >milton friedmans neo-liberalism is at the core of europes problems,
>>
>> and you have a scapegoat as well..how sweet...
> you mean i told the truth, and you do not like it. you must work in
>the financial industry. parasites never like being exposed. if they
>are exposed, it means no more free lunches, and must accept
>responsibility for their existent's:)
no, i mean you're a moron....
if you still don't follow, get someone to look it up in a 'dictionary'
for you
show them this note if you can't read
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
Nickname unavailable
> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 10:11:21 -0800 (PST), Nickname unavailable
>
>
>
again, try not to scapegoat the innocent. accept responsibility for
your actions.
> --
> web site atwww.abelard.org- news comment service, logic, economics
Robert Henderson
<c354d862-9eb8-40e5...@g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Nickname unavailable <Vid...@tcq.net> writes
>
>milton friedmans neo-liberalism is at the core of europes problems,
No, it is merely the latest outbreak of the insanity which started with
the Scotchman Adam Smith. The likes of Ricardo, Cobden and Bright were
just as barking as Friedman in the middle ofgt the 18th century. RH
Nickname unavailable
wrote:
> In message
> <c354d862-9eb8-40e5-afd1-815f1004d...@g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> writes
>
>
>
> >milton friedmans neo-liberalism is at the core of europes problems,
>
> No, it is merely the latest outbreak of the insanity which started with
> the Scotchman Adam Smith. The likes of Ricardo, Cobden and Bright were
> just as barking as Friedman in the middle ofgt the 18th century. RH
> --
true, wasn't ricardo a banker that was looking for a way to drive
down wages in england, when he came up with the free trade scam.
Occam's Razor
> On Mar 7, 11:14 am, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 15:13:02 +0000, Robert Henderson
>>
>> <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Note: The prudent have been subsidising the imprudent since the
>>> beginning of this crash.
>>
>> Let's be clear who the truly "imprudent" were. The banks, the brokers,
>> the financiers. Those who bundled CDOs and CDSs, and the regulators
>> who didn't do their job.
The Barnie Frank and Obama and Pelosi and the Andrew Cuomo types that
wanted affordable housing, they created a system to spread the risky
loans across the entire system. Look at what it got us.... we have
bad loans leveraged into the CDO's and other investment vehicles and it
all started with Government intrusion into the mortgage markets.
Occam's Razor
> and Bush's putting it forth.
>
> Before the GOP allowed mortgages to be bundled and sold off as CDOs,
> banks held their mortgages and wouldn't lend to the unworthy. when
> they discovered they could make bad loans and unload them, getting the
> profit instantly and moving the (certain) risk to others they went
> crazy.
Yes once the Democrats/Progressives as in Progressive-Republicans
allowed the government to interfere the whole thing went awry.
Nickname unavailable
> On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 13:34:28 -0500, Occam's Razor
>
>
>
> and Bush's putting it forth.
>
> Before the GOP allowed mortgages to be bundled and sold off as CDOs,
> banks held their mortgages and wouldn't lend to the unworthy. when
> they discovered they could make bad loans and unload them, getting the
> profit instantly and moving the (certain) risk to others they went
> crazy.
>
> imploded brokers were not even covered by it, Make sure you read the
> last sentence in this excerpt from the author of "Bail Out Nation"
>
> http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/06/cra-thought-experiment/
>
> In reality, the precise opposite of what a CRA-induced collapse should
> have looked like is what occurred. The 345 mortgage brokers that
> imploded were non-banks, not covered by the CRA legislation. The vast
> majority of CRA covered banks are actually healthy.
>
> The biggest foreclosure areas aren t Harlem or Chicago s South side or
> DC slums or inner city Philly; Rather, it has been non-CRA regions
> the Sand States such as southern California, Las Vegas, Arizona, and
> South Florida. The closest thing to an inner city foreclosure story is
> Detroit and maybe the bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler actually had
> something to do with that.
>
> ~~~
>
> I spent a year of my life researching and writing in painstaking
> details what the actual causes of the crisis were. I put together all
> of the moving parts as to what the actual causes were and wrote them
> up in Bailout Nation, to wit: Irresponsibly ultra-low rates that led
> to a huge housing boom; a failure by the Fed to supervise non-bank
> lenders; An abdication of lending standards by both banks and
> non-banks; Radical deregulation of financial markets; the now
> discredited belief that markets can self-regulate; a shadow derivative
> market allowed to operate unlike every other financial product;
> Compensation schemes that rewarded short term risk taking over long
> term profitibility; Increases in leverage to the major investment
> houses from 12-to-1 to 35-to-1; These were the causes of the collapse
> not some 1977 legislation.
>
> Its not simply that the overwhelming amount of evidence points to many
> factors outside of the CRA, the actual results of CRA were minor.
> Relative to these other ginormous factors, the CRA impact is all but
> irrelevant. And to date, nobody has produced any data based evidence
> that the CRA was relevant to the crisis. Not one shred.
>
> Until that evidence is produced, the CRA remains a marker, one that
> separates proponents of intellectually honest debate versus the
> parrots of partisan talking points, not worthy of your time or effort.
>
> _________
>
> "Two novels can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord
> of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often
> engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading
> to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to
> deal with the real world. The other involves orcs."
he is really beam me up scotty. its impossible to educate him. he
just keeps coming back with the same old discredited conservative
talking points.
HardySpicer
wrote:
More Scottish taxpayers money being scrounged