It's socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest of us

[crankedup]

turbobloke said:

crankedup said:

sidicks said:

Hackney said:

Vonuber quoted the £1Tr from the article
Sidicks said "no it wasn't" - a more full and comprehensive answer you'll be hard pushed to find
Hackney asks, "how much"

From then on sidicks repeatedly tells me I'm wrong about the value of the bailout and I have no understanding of economics and finance

You clearly don't understand the difference between bailouts and guarantees.
You clearly understand the difference between £100bn and £1,000bn (and most importantly the size if this number in the context of GDP etc)
You weren't able to review the article provided by Vonuber and understand why it was wrong.

You just want to have a rant about the banks without understanding any of the issues, but you've come to the wrong place for ill-informed ranting!!

That's why you're still trying to dredge up bailout data from the past!

Anyone who really wanted a sensible discussion would have done a minimal amount of investigation first!

Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 10th September 14:10

TBF I quoted that well known source from the tele documentary, it provided a forensic analysis of the banking sector crisis of 2007/8. Really very informative, yet this was discounted as simply one television program and therefore somehow not valid! (Not by your goodself I would add).

Not by me either but what was in it had been posted in PH crunch and crash threads. What were the tricky to spot new bits we'd never seen before?

At the time of first release it was all new, at least to those of us outside of the finance industry. It wasn't / isn't a 'banker bashing' documentary, purely a 'tell it as it is' candid no pulled punches investigation. For me the most telling evidence was the refusal of many 'decision makers' of the time to appear and defend their positions.
Historic it may be as a piece of viewing, however I've kept my copy and go back to it occasionally, history will not change these facts no matter how some people may wish it were so. Other investigations may be a little less brutal in overall assessment but still the seeds of destruction certainly germinated, grew and exploded into a riot of financial disaster at the feet of Banking, Governing and greed. Nothing new, even I enjoy some 'free cash' on occasion.

History of this particular 'crash' should make interesting reading for many students during the next century or so.
My personal lesson to come out of the fall out was the total comedy that was the Co-Operative bank and its ethos. Shameful and damning.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

TBF I quoted that well known source from the tele documentary, it provided a forensic analysis of the banking sector crisis of 2007/8. Really very informative, yet this was discounted as simply one television program and therefore somehow not valid! (Not by your goodself I would add).

If your tele documentary claimed that the bail-out costs approached £1 trillion, rather than £100bn, then 'forensic' is hardly the appropriate term to describe it.

Regardless, to claim it was an unbiased analysis is extremely naive. (But you knew that already!!)

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

TBF I quoted that well known source from the tele documentary, it provided a forensic analysis of the banking sector crisis of 2007/8. Really very informative, yet this was discounted as simply one television program and therefore somehow not valid! (Not by your goodself I would add).

If your tele documentary claimed that the bail-out costs approached £1 trillion, rather than £100bn, then 'forensic' is hardly the appropriate term to describe it.

Regardless, to claim it was an unbiased analysis is extremely naive. (But you knew that already!!)

Your getting mixed up with who has posted what I believe, it is another poster who has mentioned the one trillion number. It was certainly not used during the documentary to which I refer.

This work created a hard hitting documentary which is part of the reason why awards from respective industries were appropriate. All of those persons revealed to have been involved with central roles of prominent decision making leading to the financial collapse were invited to defend their decisions, or simply explain their decision making processes, they all chose not to be involved. I have yet to see or read of any evidence that counters any revelations exposed by the work and until such time I can only conclude the work is accurate and honest.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

Your getting mixed up with who has posted what I believe, it is another poster who has mentioned the one trillion number. It was certainly not used during the documentary to which I refer.

Ok, fair enough. Apologies.

crankedup said:

This work created a hard hitting documentary which is part of the reason why awards from respective industries were appropriate. All of those persons revealed to have been involved with central roles of prominent decision making leading to the financials collapse were invited to defend their decisions, or simply explain their decision making processes, they all chose not to be involved. I have yet to see or read of any evidence that counters any revelations exposed by the work and until such time I can only conclude the work is accurate and honest.

Fair enough, but let's not pretend that you coming to this from the perspective of a neutral or particularly well-informed observer!

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 11th September 11:52

[turbobloke]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

This work created a hard hitting documentary which is part of the reason why awards from respective industries were appropriate. All of those persons revealed to have been involved with central roles of prominent decision making leading to the financials collapse were invited to defend their decisions, or simply explain their decision making processes, they all chose not to be involved. I have yet to see or read of any evidence that counters any revelations exposed by the work and until such time I can only conclude the work is accurate and honest.

Fair enough, but let's not pretend that you coming to this from the perspective of a neutral or particularly well-informed observer!

Also there were no 'revelations' not already covered in PH threads so looking from a PH perspective it isn't 'all new'. There seems to be a repeated hint that something remarkable and previously unknown was aired which darkens the right doors, certainly not the left doors

[crankedup]

On the contrary, I was in hope that my posting would perhaps encourage some interesting and contradictory evidence to the 'work' that I made reference to.

[turbobloke]

Fair enough, good luck.

[anonymous-user]

crankedup said:

On the contrary, I was in hope that my posting would perhaps encourage some interesting and contradictory evidence to the 'work' that I made reference to.

Give us a link to it, I couldn't find one when you were talking about it before.

[otolith]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Job_(2010_fi...

It won an Oscar for best documentary, to stand alongside Bowling For Columbine and An Inconvenient Truth. If those experts in economics, finance and morality at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences think it's a good movie, it must be gospel.

[turbobloke]

otolith said:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Job_(2010_fi...

It won an Oscar for best documentary, to stand alongside Bowling For Columbine and An Inconvenient Truth. If those experts in economics, finance and morality at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences think it's a good movie, it must be gospel.

If it stands alongside Gore's AIT quackumentary then it might like to take a few large steps towards the horizon. Hopefully it won't fall over in the process.

[crankedup]

otolith said:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Job_(2010_fi...

It won an Oscar for best documentary, to stand alongside Bowling For Columbine and An Inconvenient Truth. If those experts in economics, finance and morality at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences think it's a good movie, it must be gospel.

More reason the so called experts in here should be able to rip apart the contents with fact rather than vacuous comments perhaps. The wait is likely to be a long one based upon past form.

[turbobloke]

crankedup said:

otolith said:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Job_(2010_fi...

It won an Oscar for best documentary, to stand alongside Bowling For Columbine and An Inconvenient Truth. If those experts in economics, finance and morality at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences think it's a good movie, it must be gospel.

More reason the so called experts in here should be able to rip apart the contents with fact...

That's a curious thing to expect. As you seem to be claiming knowledge of what's in it, which specific 'revelation(s)' are you expecting to be ripped apart?

It's a vague accusation to levy on the entire PH collective without any details of what you're referring to.

Details of various angles on the crunch and crash are all over PH threads already, it would certainly be of interest to examine something new.

[anonymous-user]

crankedup said:

More reason the so called experts in here should be able to rip apart the contents with fact rather than vacuous comments perhaps. The wait is likely to be a long one based upon past form.

Like whoever started this thread about that silly guardian article why do you think you can demand a response? You haven't even posted a link for those of us who haven't seen it, what facts are we supposed to be refuting? Your little digs at 'so called experts' are childish.

[otolith]

The content is pretty much irrelevant, the point is trying to base an informed opinion on a polemic documentary and thinking that a bunch of Hollywood luvvies enjoying the film vindicates that position.

[Digga]

otolith said:

The content is pretty much irrelevant, the point is trying to base an informed opinion on a polemic documentary and thinking that a bunch of Hollywood luvvies enjoying the film vindicates that position.

And any account which neatly side-steps the Democrat's role in the changes to the US mortgage markets during Clinton's tenure is being willfully ignorant of the full picture.

[crankedup]

turbobloke said:

crankedup said:

otolith said:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Job_(2010_fi...

It won an Oscar for best documentary, to stand alongside Bowling For Columbine and An Inconvenient Truth. If those experts in economics, finance and morality at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences think it's a good movie, it must be gospel.

More reason the so called experts in here should be able to rip apart the contents with fact...

That's a curious thing to expect. As you seem to be claiming knowledge of what's in it, which specific 'revelation(s)' are you expecting to be ripped apart?

It's a vague accusation to levy on the entire PH collective without any details of what you're referring to.

Details of various angles on the crunch and crash are all over PH threads already, it would certainly be of interest to examine something new.

Only the so called experts are being called upon, not 'the entire PH collective'.
The film was recently rubbished (experts?) interestingly but not unexpectedly none of the accusations were actually backed with any facts to back the negativity espoused toward the work.
It is always well worth treading over old ground, you never know when some new poster may appear with something fresh.

[crankedup]

otolith said:

The content is pretty much irrelevant, the point is trying to base an informed opinion on a polemic documentary and thinking that a bunch of Hollywood luvvies enjoying the film vindicates that position.

If you are able to provide a little counter pointing to the documentary details please. Perhaps that will under-pin your claim that 'the content is pretty much irrelevant' I am sure that I would not be the only reader to be interested.
Or provide some links that hold fundamental agreement with your own POV about this documentary.
Or perhaps its is simply your own isolated POV based upon your personal experiences, which is fair enough.

[anonymous-user]

crankedup said:

Or provide some links

Perhaps you could do the same. For those of us who haven't seen this remarkable 'work' it's unsuprising that you could be waiting for some time for it to be refuted if indeed it is wrong. So far your contribution to this thread has been, I saw this damning documentary, prove that it is wrong. How about you tell us exactly what we are supposed to be responding to? Ridiculous.

[otolith]

If you said you were pinning your understanding of Scottish history on Braveheart, it wouldn't need a point by point examination of its accuracy to tell you that one film is not a good basis for an understanding of a complex subject, and that you are seeing history through one person's biases.

[Sprouts]

vonuber said:

Eh was looking for some thoughtful discussion / critiques; my mistake.

On this subject, you won't find it here.