|
Darth Walrus posted:Remind me, did our mortgage-backed stuff go boom in 2007/8, or was that just the hilariously under-regulated interaction between the American housing and banking sectors that hosed everything up for everything else?
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 13:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:47 |
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:I don't think it's a problem of administration or infrastructure, just a problem of getting 70 or 300 million people to keep up with the sheer volume of poo poo the government does on a daily basis (locally, regionally, and nationally) and take an active interest. I'm not saying it's a reason not to do it, it's just a difficult element. technocracy + direct democratic and recall power in a constitution is the smooth tasting blend of freedom Darth Walrus posted:Remind me, did our mortgage-backed stuff go boom in 2007/8, or was that just the hilariously under-regulated interaction between the American housing and banking sectors that hosed everything up for everything else? London was selling utter shite, it was the idiot Americans who got caught holding the bag when it went off. Then everyone realised they, too, were holding terrible bags. Toxic mortgages were a problem, the scale and depth of the problem was due to it being global. No way out, essentially.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 13:12
|
|
|
Via something I'm doing at work just now 've stumbled across this:Licensed Victuallers' School posted:The school has 3 day houses, Whitbread, Bell's and Courage, and 4 boarding houses, Bass, Carlsberg, Guinness and Gilbey. The school is co-educational and currently has 900 pupils aged 4–18 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 13:19
|
|
|
When does Douglas Carswell actually do the work he was elected for? He is on tv everyday.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 13:20
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:Via something I'm doing at work just now 've stumbled across this: So assuming it's school year ages 4-17 (since they'll be 5-18 when the year finishes) that's 13 years and dividing 900 by 13 gets... 69 students per year... niiice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 13:24
|
|
|
There is absolutely nothing to worry about the mayor of London dumping toxic assets into pension funds. There is no London housing bubble. Nobody could have forseen it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 13:25
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:So assuming it's school year ages 4-17 (since they'll be 5-18 when the year finishes) that's 13 years and dividing 900 by 13 gets... 69 students per year... niiice. Isn't it more interesting that they are all names / brands of alcoholic drinks?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 13:26
|
|
|
Dead Goon posted:Isn't it more interesting that they are all names / brands of alcoholic drinks?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
It's the UKMTest boarding school.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 13:32
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:It was the american stuff that went boom. British mortgage default rates remained very low throughout the crisis. Isn't that because of the way our banks re-sold those lovely mortgages to the international markets?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 13:40
|
|
|
Dead Goon posted:Isn't it more interesting that they are all names / brands of alcoholic drinks? Yes, but the subtle 69 is worth noting IMO.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 13:42
|
|
|
I'm in house Kropotkin at the UKMTest boarding school. It's pretty messy because everyone just puts their coats in a pile. I used to be in house Hoxha but I got expelled for doing revision.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 13:42
|
|
|
From what I recall of the American catastrophe it was based on the assignment of risk based on credit history but the (self regulating) mortgage industry decided that having no credit history meant no bad credit history, and consequently assigned those with no history the lowest possible risk when selling those mortgages to other entities lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 13:47
|
|
|
The Big Short is a very good movie. You may still be able to find it in cinemas if you're lucky, too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 13:52
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:From what I recall of the American catastrophe it was based on the assignment of risk based on credit history but the (self regulating) mortgage industry decided that having no credit history meant no bad credit history, and consequently assigned those with no history the lowest possible risk when selling those mortgages to other entities lol Haven't heard that myself but considering some of the other software/conceptions of the housing market that I've heard (like investment software crashing if you tried to input a negative change in value) it's possible. Much of the explosion in trading subprime was a result of a theoretical formula which showed that a sufficiently diverse mix of property types all contained in one investment package actually had incredibly low to no risk attached because as each of the property classes were independent of each other the chances of a general collapse was mathematically impossible/very remote. Naturally the whole real estate market collapsed together and here we are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 14:01
|
|
|
The financial crisis was a result of overly intrusive regulation of markets by interfering government busybodies who refuse to acknowledge that A does in fact equal A
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
Also scroungers. And immigrants.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
Tony Blair wanted less regulation in the Banking Sector and he won three elections. This proves he was right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
well if you think about it the people who run the banks are professionals, so if they want to leverage 90% of their customers' deposits for investment in self-regulated financial industry at no risk to themselves they probably know what's best and should be left to it. Government = inefficiency.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 14:24
|
|
|
all the bankers I know are coke abusing alcoholics with serious personal issues and not one of them trained in finance or econ, it's the strangest industry
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
How do they get the jobs then? Nepotism? Occult ritual?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:How do they get the jobs then? Nepotism? Occult ritual? Connections and/or dumb luck. Much like in most other industries.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:How do they get the jobs then? Nepotism? Occult ritual? You tend to just need some maths (so a science, maths, etc) rather than an economics degree. Most bankers don't actually do anything skilled.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
God look how much more divided people view the Labour party under Corbyn compared to 5 years ago. Oh wai..
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
I distinctly remember a mate of mine who's something fairly important at Barclay's drinking most of a bottle of whisky and screaming "what does all this mean!?" at a table full of scribbled notes at 3am on the morning of a multi million pound meeting. None of them have a loving clue what they're doing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
Calling shotgun on Great Khan of StokeGuavanaut posted:I used to be in house Hoxha but I got expelled for doing revision. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:well if you think about it the people who run the banks are professionals, so if they want to leverage 90% of their customers' deposits for investment in self-regulated financial industry at no risk to themselves they probably know what's best and should be left to it. Government = inefficiency. Nothing has annoyed me more in my entire life than conflation of "professional" with "expert" (and the partner pair, "amateur" and "novice"). Any fool can charge a fee.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:It's the UKMTest boarding school. It lacks a Fluo Memorial Bursary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
Fans posted:Tony Blair wanted less regulation in the Banking Sector and he won three elections. This proves he was right. this is more than a little revisionist. in 1996, between Barings, BCCI, and Morgan Grenfell & Co., there was remarkably little elite patience with city self-regulation and the (perceived) excessively close relationship between the Bank of England and the industry. New Labour steadily pushed through the FSA as a state regulator from 1997 to 2000, when it finally successfully passed the Financial Services and Markets Act, over much City and Tory screaming this is of course not what old Labour would have done, but New Labour was (being New Labour) partially adapting Thatcher's own attack on the City as too clubby to be reliably self-regulating, rather than adhering to older Labour doctrines of overt nationalization. Clause IV did not say: thou shalt establish a regulatory state for the public good amidst private ownership. It said: thou shalt establish common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. two decades after the fact, if you're sitting here in the glorious future chomping at the bit for "regulation" rather than "nationalization+economic central planning of national capital toward full employment", then you've already bought into the neoliberal policy universe of New Labour. That, or you've forgotten you're British rather than American. ronya fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Mar 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
namesake posted:Haven't heard that myself but considering some of the other software/conceptions of the housing market that I've heard (like investment software crashing if you tried to input a negative change in value) it's possible. House prices can only go up uP UP
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
If anyone wants a hearty laugh at how loving stupid The Saurus is he's currently in the GOP primary thread accusing people who won't vote for Trump as being liberals who don't care about the poor. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
So for those of you who hate yourselves and therefore watch question time: What the hell is it people are expecting when they say they haven't had enough information about the EU? It always feels like they just want to be given a direct answer of which is better without realising the whole reason there's a vote is that there ISN'T a direct answer. I really can't wrap my head around the people who, when there's a disagreement around something, decide that both sides are wrong and there isn't an answer. poo poo like that is why direct democracy wouldn't really work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
Plush French hotel turns away British royal family Once again, France shows the correct way to deal with royals 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
ronya posted:two decades after the fact, if you're sitting here in the glorious future chomping at the bit for "regulation" rather than "nationalization+economic central planning of national capital toward full employment", then you've already bought into the neoliberal policy universe of New Labour. That, or you've forgotten you're British rather than American. what if we skip the full employment bit as a total impossibility amidst use of capital and adopt central planning ideas towards mincome replacing the benefit system as a permanent provider of counter-cyclical velocity is that post-Keynesian enough for you Taear posted:So for those of you who hate yourselves and therefore watch question time: Direct democracy doesn't work in any system where information is suppressed, in a direct democratic system you'd need to enforce a proper state press with the job of supplying information. Given that newspapers are basically dead, this would have to be rethought, especially since I struggle to believe anyone not versed in IT from a young age would be able to process that amount of digital information, leaving "the internet" as a problem-riddled solution. A constitutional technocracy bound to act on a leftist agenda is the only reasonable solution to the problems of the modern state. That or Tsarism, which seems to be working pretty well for Russia within it's own failed economic confines. Spangly A fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Mar 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
Full employment is wholly possible, although primarily under a war economy. Call me optimistic but I'm sure we could find a way to make a war economy work outside of an environment where we're getting bombed to poo poo from time to time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
EU referendum: Former Bank of England governor Mervyn King suggests he could vote for BrexitGraun live blog posted:Mervyn King, the former governor of the Bank of England, has suggested that he could vote to leave the EU. In an interview on the World at One, he claimed he had not yet made up his mind as to how he would vote in the referendum. He appeared to criticise the government and Remain/Leave campaigns for not setting out the arguments properly. He said:
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
I would be OK with taking economic pointers from Metal Gear Rising. I don't think it could really be much worse than the current approach.dispatch_async posted:EU referendum: Former Bank of England governor Mervyn King suggests he could vote for Brexit Former Bank of England governor expresses understanding of concept of democracy, espouses capacity to cast vote in election. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Mar 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
Taear posted:What the hell is it people are expecting when they say they haven't had enough information about the EU? It always feels like they just want to be given a direct answer of which is better without realising the whole reason there's a vote is that there ISN'T a direct answer. Understanding massive systems that are way outside of your control and involve numbers of people orders of magnitude higher than Dunbar's number is daunting. Dealing with organizations that put out more reports than you could read in a lifetime every week makes direct analysis impossible. And then asking you to make one of two rigid choices based on that? It's human nature that camps and demagogues form around this type of thing. Then stereotypes of the camps form and people put out feelers to see which one their own internal worldview meshes closest with, but that becomes very hard when you have one camp that holds everyone from 'kippers to anarchists and another that holds everyone from Cameron and the big banks to pan-European nationalists. There is no right choice, there's a less wrong choice and a more wrong choice, but for who? That changes significantly depending on whether you're talking about me personally, my family, my city, my ethno-religious group, Glorious Britane, Europe, or the world. It's understandable that people are just going to grab on to one of those and go with the overall flow of what they're saying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:If anyone wants a hearty laugh at how loving stupid The Saurus is he's currently in the GOP primary thread accusing people who won't vote for Trump as being liberals who don't care about the poor. Since I figure it might get lost in the mists of time, here we go: DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:bad news: we've seen his agenda published on his website and it's the same pro-business nonsense the Republican Party has been spouting for decades-- cut taxes on the wealthy, slash social programs, and eviscerate health care (despite what he said at the debate, his website indicates he wants to bring back pre-existing condition denials). The Saurus posted:using words like SLASH and EVISCERATE makes his moderate reforms seem really scary, good plan The man who called us liberals and said he was the one true communist is claiming that Donald Trump, who says he's going to cut healthcare, isn't going to cut healthcare, and then rails on about wars overseas as if Trump hasn't said he'll torture suspected terrorists and kill their families.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:47 |
|
|
Spangly A posted:what if we skip the full employment bit as a total impossibility amidst use of capital and adopt central planning ideas towards mincome replacing the benefit system as a permanent provider of counter-cyclical velocity I'm not sure how you'd reconcile central planning with market-embedded mincome, save in the most nebulous Eastern-European-pre-1989-vintage neoclassical socialism. We've never gotten to see how that works out. And besides, if you take marginal-effective-tax-rates-in-the-benefit-system concerns that seriously, how post-Keynesian could you be, really? The paradox of costs - the Kaleckian thesis that higher wage rates increase the rate of profit, cet par - would be really hard to create. also I've heard it whispered that if you wring your hands enough about benefit systems of any kind as permanent providers of counter-cyclical velocity, you are reincarnated as a German central banker with the words "automatischer stabilisator" tattooed across your forehead. We've seen how well that works; there's possibly something to be said for Anglospheric discretionary macroeconomic policy. So I would not put too much stock there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 16:56
|
|