Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As you are aware PM Brown paid a visit to President Obama last week. I heard that he brought a rather thoughtful gift for the Obamas, but returned with 25 dvds that he couldn't view and the bust of Winston Churchil. What has the coverage of this been like, and what impressions have you gathered from this regarding the future relationship the US and UK?

Its just Gordan Brown trying to get some publicity, I just wish he would step down and someone who had expirence at leading a country took over. But really it was just Brown sucking up to Obama.

I'm not sure what the point of this is. It was nothing to do with 'sucking up' to Obama. Its actually encouraging that leaders fly out to meet each other in person. It keeps us in the loop and improving international relationship and encouraging trade are positive steps in hard times. Especially with the most powerful man in the western world. No good has ever come from isolationism.

As to Brown being inexperienced? Well he's go a damn sight more experience then most and I personally can't think of any other MP, in any party, who could do the job better currently. Of course true public opinion on his performance (as opposed to internet whining and the twisted ravings of the right wing press) will become apparent at the next election.

Yeah, coverage here was mainly on his speech to congress. He might have been a little overly flattering to them but I don't see anything wrong with it. People here blame the recession on Brown and that's just so short-sighted.

It was sucking up. Ever since blair and clinton's relationship all we've seen is one big suck up to america from our government. He doesn't even have the balls to come out directly and slate americas torture policy, which we are told time and time again our government is against.

You are? I've seen your food. You have no qualms about torturing millions. Daily.

easy there with that comment old timer
our food aint that bad.
ok, it aint the best, but do you see us eating frogs, snails or rats?
there is alot worse out there.

You can say what you like, but you'll never have the feeling of satisfaction that comes with coming home after a hard days work, tucking into some beans on toast and discovering theres sausages in there aswell.

Mmmm...pinto beans and sausage with sweet cornbread and a sofa to sleep off the coma...

im more of a sunday roast person

allthough beans on toast = great, sausages aswell = best invention since sliced bread

World leaders should just skype each other

In the damp, you want something that will stick to the sides.


I see a lot of similarity between our Taoiseach, Brian Cowen, and Prime Minister Brown. Both aren't the most charismatic of men, and both got handed a big bucket of gak by the men they replaced, who were both forced out due to scandal.

(What's the betting most of the Brits haven't heard of Cowen ?)

Except Brown was in part responsible for the"big bucket of gak" handed to him.

Well, Cowen was minister for finance for the Irish Government for the last long while, so he's partly responsible too. The similarities are shockin'.

I see. Like you suggested I know little of this Cowen you speak of.

Da Boss wrote:(What's the betting most of the Brits haven't heard of Cowen ?)

But maybe that's more down to his insignificance than our ignorance?

whatwhat wrote:I see. Like you suggested I know little of this Cowen you speak of.

Da Boss wrote:(What's the betting most of the Brits haven't heard of Cowen ?)

But maybe that's more down to his insignificance than our ignorance?

Be polite now, English. China could say the same about Brown (just to tie into another thread).

whatwhat wrote:
But maybe that's more down to his insignificance than our ignorance?

Oh yeah, it definitely is.

Still, wouldn't be too bad for ye to have an idea of the leaders of the countries next door to you- but I'd not be able to name the head of state in Portugal, or the Netherlands. I just enjoy poking fun.

Frazzled wrote:You are? I've seen your food. You have no qualms about torturing millions. Daily.

Frazzled has a point...

I went to London last year and the food was interesting to say the least. I heard about shepard's pie before but never tried it till I went to a pub. Wow, it was a huge disappointment.

BTW, every GW stores I visited in London were tiny. They have no playing space at all except for a couple of 4' x 4' demo tables.

Brown lacks experience.

And I suppose Daveyboy Cameron has that in spades doesn't he?

I actually feel quite safe with Brown helming the country at the moment. The main cause of the world wide recession would be the banks being a bunch of greedy little wotsits, and giving out loans willy nilly, most notably to people who couldn't afford to pay it back (Subprime lending. Yeah. There's a reason others turned them down...THEY ARE SKINT)

Under Brown, Britain has bought massive chunks of the banks. We Tax Payers now own so much of Lloyds TSB, the government is the majority share holder, and has ordered them to start lending again.

I don't think people grap just how relatively easy it is to kickstart the world economy again. The Banks have had massive investment on all sides, with the idea being the various Governments bought their 'theoretical' money stuff, and turned it into liquid assests. Reason? So they would have the moolah genuinely floating around, insead of just sort of sitting on a book, and be able to lend it. But the buttholes didn't. Oh no. They said 'ta mate' and just sort of...pissed it up the wall buying each other etc.

But by ordering Lloyds to start lending again, we have a decent crack at getting the economy restarted. After all, when one starts lending again, the others don't want to lose business, so they will start lending again to retain custom. Bingo, the gears, though still a bit rusty, are at least turning again. At least, thats the theory.

And of course, the Tories love to point out the 'squandering' of Billions on the Banks. Except, we bought shares in them. Ergo, when the economy is up and running again, and the shares inevitably rise in accordance with market confidence, BOOF, Government sells them for a modest profit, leaving Britain nowhere near as badly off as Daveyboy makes out.

Lets face it, being the official opposition in Britain is a piece of piss. You sit on your bench, make snide remarks, and until around election time, you can spout whatever bollocks you want, as at no point will your theories and 'policies' be put to the test, and instead you get to just go 'nyah nyah ours would have worked' should the Governments plan fail.

I wonder if Daily Mail readers appreciate just how much the world is going to change in such a short time. If Britain can get back on her feet quicker than any other country, we'll be in an extremely strong position in terms of trade agreements etc. If played right (and I'm pretty sure it won't be ) this recession could be of real benefit to the old girl.

Respectfully, that reflects the ignorance of what really is going on, fostered by an ignorant press, and a Congress that created this mess and is now hiding from it.


In the mid 1990s Congress and the Clinton administration changed the rules and pressured banks to lend to the subprime market. The lenders initially resisted, but were threatened with punitive regulation and criminal penalties. Then Fannie/Freddie, at the behest of those same parties, changed their criteria as well. Lo and behold banks could now package these mortgages and ship them out. Their risk was less as they hey, these loans were backed by Fannie/which was backed by the US Government.
Everyone trumpeted the loans. Look minorities and poor people are getting more houses! Isn’t that great! Some realized the coming fiasco, but nothing was done and regulation was stymied under both Republican and then Democratic led Congresses. And greed did indeed set in by the banks who received fees and all the investors (that’s anyone with a 401K-aka most working people) who wanted those higher returns.
So when it hit, the Banks tightened their standards back to historical norms where it should have been all along. Congress, and the public, after chastising banks threatening banks, nationalizing banks, and watching them teeter on or go into bankruptcy, somehow think that they should lend out money at the old fiasco credit standards. That’s just blindingly stupid. You literally repeat the cycle.
Now we are in a hard recession. Banks always cut back in a recession, as the credit standards of people and companies are poor. It is worse currently. But telling them to lend is idiotic. Personal rant but cutting off private lenders from student loans only exacerbates the situation, as those default rates have not changed. Thank you era of Big Government.
The financial side won’t get better until: 1) there is a comprehensive plan for an Reosolution Trust type structure; 2) one where banks are acquired, stripped of their bad assets and then resold privately (Aka short term nationalization); or 3) let the banks that fail, fail. Let the mortgage bankruptcies flow throough the system, the finanicla bankruptcies flow through the system like its supposed to. At the end of the day you will have strong institutions, speculators will be screwed, and the “civvies” can start the work of getting their credit back.

Interesting to note: outside of Michigan which has been hit by auto fiasco, mortgage default rates are not significantly higher than historical norms in a recession outside of California, Nevada, and Florida-all with noted concentrations of speculators. We will indeed be bailing out speculators. And no those who couldn’t afford these houses have been shafted because their credit is garbage, all because they bought a house in an overheated market, way beyond their means.

Frazzled wrote:MDG, respectfully, your ignorance of world financial markets is only matched by that of the US Congress.

Why's that? As far as I can see in ther UK, the banks shut up shop on loans (due to their greed) and now everybody is suffering over here. Can talk about the rest of the world, but if the banks started loaning money again, businesses would need to sack staff, so workers more confident and will start spending again, which means jobs are saved. Added to this, if we can tie in house prices dropping to sensible level and mortgages being approved again, that will help the construction industry.

I don't read the news...I make it!

Seriously though, I hope Brown can help the americans with the big issue that the Obama's are dealing with...finding a new dog!!

Oh America, land of the free. They have the biggest defense budget in the world and all the press want to talk about is where their president is going to find a new dog from.

inquisitor_bob wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You are? I've seen your food. You have no qualms about torturing millions. Daily.

Frazzled has a point...

I went to London last year and the food was interesting to say the least. I heard about shepard's pie before but never tried it till I went to a pub. Wow, it was a huge disappointment.

BTW, every GW stores I visited in London were tiny. They have no playing space at all except for a couple of 4' x 4' demo tables.

First rule of dining out in Britain is never to go to a pub.

Traditional 'pub grub' = @:-O~~~~~

Simpson's in the Strand is the place to go for some proper British traditional food.

http://www.simpsonsinthestrand.co.uk/

Go to Franco Manca

Much, much, MUCH tastiness and bargain prices too.

Frazzled wrote:Respectfully, that reflects the ignorance of what really is going on, fostered by an ignorant press, and a Congress that created this mess and is now hiding from it.


In the mid 1990s Congress and the Clinton administration changed the rules and pressured banks to lend to the subprime market. The lenders initially resisted, but were threatened with punitive regulation and criminal penalties. Then Fannie/Freddie, at the behest of those same parties, changed their criteria as well. Lo and behold banks could now package these mortgages and ship them out. Their risk was less as they hey, these loans were backed by Fannie/which was backed by the US Government.
Everyone trumpeted the loans. Look minorities and poor people are getting more houses! Isn’t that great! Some realized the coming fiasco, but nothing was done and regulation was stymied under both Republican and then Democratic led Congresses. And greed did indeed set in by the banks who received fees and all the investors (that’s anyone with a 401K-aka most working people) who wanted those higher returns.
So when it hit, the Banks tightened their standards back to historical norms where it should have been all along. Congress, and the public, after chastising banks threatening banks, nationalizing banks, and watching them teeter on or go into bankruptcy, somehow think that they should lend out money at the old fiasco credit standards. That’s just blindingly stupid. You literally repeat the cycle.
Now we are in a hard recession. Banks always cut back in a recession, as the credit standards of people and companies are poor. It is worse currently. But telling them to lend is idiotic. Personal rant but cutting off private lenders from student loans only exacerbates the situation, as those default rates have not changed. Thank you era of Big Government.
The financial side won’t get better until: 1) there is a comprehensive plan for an Reosolution Trust type structure; 2) one where banks are acquired, stripped of their bad assets and then resold privately (Aka short term nationalization); or 3) let the banks that fail, fail. Let the mortgage bankruptcies flow throough the system, the finanicla bankruptcies flow through the system like its supposed to. At the end of the day you will have strong institutions, speculators will be screwed, and the “civvies” can start the work of getting their credit back.

Interesting to note: outside of Michigan which has been hit by auto fiasco, mortgage default rates are not significantly higher than historical norms in a recession outside of California, Nevada, and Florida-all with noted concentrations of speculators. We will indeed be bailing out speculators. And no those who couldn’t afford these houses have been shafted because their credit is garbage, all because they bought a house in an overheated market, way beyond their means.

Although Frazzled is typically a knee-jerk, Fox watching, hate-filled, murderous idiot - in this case he is totally right. Lending more money will just devalue the money already in circulation, the only way to make more wealth at this point is to actually make more wealth, not more money. So more people working, people working more, or working for less; either those at the top, middle or bottom. Or by bringing in wealth from other countries, either with good immigrant labor or other means.
Thats not to say bankers etc aren't responsible, but at this point there's little they can do, unless they switch jobs.

namegoeshere wrote:
Although Frazzled is typically a knee-jerk Fox watching murderous idiot - in this case he is totally right. Lending more money will just devalue the money already in circulation, the only way to make more wealth at this point is to actually make more wealth, not more money. So more people working, people working more, or working for less; either those at the top, middle or bottom. Or by bringing in wealth from other countries, either with good immigrant labor or other means.

Wow such complements will turn my he...hey wait! I am not knee-jerk! And only She Who Must Be Obeyed can call me an idiot. Don't make her wake the Baby!

A lot of the UK's problems are indeed down to the Media.

The first of our financial institutions to hit the skids was Northern Rock, a now nationalised Building Society. As the Subprime Market began to eat itself, the Bank Of England approved a massive Cash Injection Loan for Northern Rock. Now, this might well have worked, because as I said, this would allow Northern Rock to realise many of it's assests, and thus be as well off as their loans suggested.

But the Media got hold of and started a lot of panic. Northern Rock customers queued for hours to take out their savings. Now, my understanding is shakey at best, but to the best of my knowledge, Building Societies (not sure if the US has similar institutions) depend entirely on the savings of their customers to continue their investment. So a large chunk of Northern Rocks customers remove their money from it, meaning despite the cash loan, they are back to being skint.

Had the media not seized it as a cheap headline, Northern Rock might well have ridden out the storm. But now we will never know.,

In Britain at least, the problem is as follows.

1. Credit became too easy to obtain. Thus, whilst a family might well be able to afford a large mortgage, the problem came from nonsecured Loans, Credit Cards, and people remortgaging their property. This meant meant many families living at the extreme end of their budget.

2. When the Bank of England raised interest rates to encourage saving, rather than lending, many people from point 1. were suddenly in default as the banks (understandably) passed on the rate rise immediately.

3.This meant the general public had less spending power, as more and more of their money was being spent on necessities rather than luxuries.

4. Step 3 coincided with a large jump in Oil prices, which caused Petrol and Diesel prices to jump. Plus, the cost of food, due to increased transportation costs, went up, squeezing peoples walletts even more.

5. All this adds up to a sudden reduction in the general populaces luxury spending. At this point the financial problems werem't insurmountable. However, it was at this stage the Banks found themselves in deep schtook.

6. Which lead to the Banks being cagey about any loan, business, mortgage, private loan or CC. Plus, despite major cuts in Interest Rates being made (from 5% to just 0.5%) hardly any of the banks passed this on to their customers.....

7. The businesses in the luxury end of the market were thusly unable to obtain short term loans to tide them through the period of belt tightening. As such, they began to shed jobs to streamline and maximise any income they had.

8. This of course, means unemployment for many, with massive repercussions as we again find fewer people with the readies for luxury spending. This cycle keeps repeating itself, getting worse, until the Banks start lending to businesses again.

Of course, a few Billion in loans won't set everything rosey overnight. That would be a miracle. However, it does break the cycle, and stops things getting any worse. Bit by bit, the cycle actually reverses until things are back to where they ought to be.

Although I do hasten to point out....Woolworths, so far Britains biggest casualty, had £300,000,000 of debt already, so despite the Credit Crunch, it really was just a matter of time until it died. This is crap management, not the evil banks. Same with many other large companies who essentially borrowed themselves into oblivion. Thus, the 'Credit Crunch' just isn't as severe (well, not yet) as people fear. It's when previously completely healthy business choke and die that things are dire!

Hope this makes sense, and do remember I'm only spinning my chin with regard to the UK.

At least in the US, it does all mostly go back to lending.

People can't borrow money, so they can't buy houses and cars.
Since no one is buying houses, real estate is devalued.
Businesses can't borrow money, so they can't make payroll.
People are laid off.
Since business is laying off and not expanding, their stock drops in value.

A lot of the problem is the deregulation of banking, the Glass Stegall act under the Clinton admin. This let banks be both commercial and investment banks. This is bad, because investment banks should be allowed to fail. But, commerical banks shouldn't, and they shouldn't need to fail because they're supposed to 'safe' with investments. This is why Citigroups' stock is on the McDonald's value menu now for less than $1.

At the heart of the matter, there's a lot of greed. There was the opportunity for people to make short-term profit, so they did. It was a house of cards. They assumed the 'good times would keep on rollin'. Any plan that requires everything to go 'right' for it to 'work' is a bad plan.

What the American voters need to do is hold Congress accountable. Which, historically, we don't do. Unless it's an incumbent caught up in a scandal. I am definitely more of a 'free market' than 'regulation' person. However, some regulation is necessary. 1) it needs to prevent monopolies, which have a long-term negative effect on prices but also creates the 'too big to let fail' syndrome which goes against 'free market' and 2) punish those who knowingly do wrong things. White collar crime isn't always obvious, but depleting someone's retirement savings so that you made a quick buck on the stock market is just as much a crime as robbing them of their savings at gunpoint.

Well, at least that's how Jon Stewart explained it on the Daily Show!

Oh indeed. House of Cards is a very appropriate analogy.

The silly loans the Banks gave out were, somewhat short sightedly, only a good idea as long as the Housing Market continued to grow year on year, as a profit was always to be made.

Now, the one thing I've not been able to figure out in this whole mess, is the very very start. Now, I understand it was the collapse of the Sub Prime market.....

But what triggered that collapse? Anyone? I need to be enlightened on this! And financial sites make my eyes bleed.