|
LongQ
8,840 posts
102 months
|
davepoth said: WhoseGeneration said: How old are you?
Old enough, like me and some here, to remember the forecasts of technology would mean a life of leaisure for all? You say that, but there are 9 million economically inactive people in the UK, some 25% of the population available to work. That's the highest proportion ever. I think that begs a bit of a question. What if we're sleepwalking into the life of leisure? Is it possible that we've arrived at a point whereby there just isn't any suitable work for a broad swathe of the population? What should they do instead? The original 'dream' was that all would work but far fewer hours per week for the same sort of lifestyle and then retire much earlier tahn 60/65. What seems to be happening is that fewer people work longer hours and retire later. So few of any of he many 'Future Predictions' ever made have come to anything resembling how they were described that it seems almost possible to wait for a futuroligist to create a list and then use that as things that will NOT come to pass.
|
|
|
Tartan Pixie
600 posts
16 months
|
LongQ said: I'm really not sure the analiogy about collective security stands up - other than when some other dynamic is oin play to force the issue. There's lots of dynamics forcing the issue, trade and threat of invasion being the obvious ones. Good points about the tribal thing. I remember an article in New Scientist saying how we seem to be hard wired for a tribal sized group of about 150, which is where I picked the number from. IIRC it went on to say about how social media was changing this through identifiers, a good example of which would be PH. Quite a few people have a PH smiley on their car which allows us to identify each other even if we're not part of the same group in real life, allowing tribal type connections over often quite large groups of people٭. An interesting experiment would have been to not build an EU parliament but instead have a democratic vote in each country to put a little yellow star in the corner of their flag. All you would need is to ask people to be part of a group of their own free will and give them an identifier. ٭Though if the whole of PH was put in one confined space together it probably wouldn't be a happy family for long and it would revert to smaller tribal groups.  LongQ said: So few of any of he many 'Future Predictions' ever made have come to anything resembling how they were described that it seems almost possible to wait for a futuroligist to create a list and then use that as things that will NOT come to pass. Arthur C Clarke - Geostationary satellites among other things. Isac Asimov - In 1950 predicted pretty much everything we still argue about today concerning AI. Buck Rogers wasn't quite so accurate though.
|
|
|
RichardD
3,237 posts
114 months
|
Steffan said: I know the FSA report.
Could you explain how this means, that millions of people have been bailed out, please? I didn't see a response to this, apologies if I've missed it. A bail out through ZIRP ...
|
|
|
DJRC
19,848 posts
105 months
|
Tartan Pixie said: Isac Asimov - In 1950 predicted pretty much everything we still argue about today concerning AI.
That would be because the logical basics of AI were already established and in many ways had been for a long time. Mathmatical algorithms of deterministic behavior for a start.
|
|
|
Murph7355
9,416 posts
125 months
|
LongQ said: I think it is already roosting.
So how do you propose we 'man up'?
Maybe take control of our own destinies in some way?
A few million people with their backs against the wall and no hope taking to the streets could get messy.
So leave it all to the people in Westminster/Brussels?
If neither of those, what? I'm not sure we're even close to it roosting yet here  I have no idea how we force people to man up. Looking at the reaction to the mild tinkering on certain elements of expenditure I don't think it's possible. Certainly not without steeling ourselves to people on the streets. I guess, in part, it will end up being how we deal with that. Yes, a large number on the streets will get messy. But what's the alternative? If we have millions utterly dependent on state hand outs and state jobs that cannot be paid for, we're inevitably going to get a lot of unhappy bunnies when the money runs out. Maybe we just need to keep our fingers crossed that the rest of the world implodes more fully than we do, leaving us stronger. Can't see it though. Perhaps moving out to the sticks wasn't such a bad idea after all. Less likely to be millioners of unhappy people rioting where I live, and I can grow my own carrots and spuds
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
DJRC
19,848 posts
105 months
|
Bankia shares suspended chaps.
|
|
|
Mermaid
12,497 posts
40 months
|
DJRC said: Bankia shares suspended chaps. ahead of rescue details, Board meeting today at 16:30 CET
|
|
|
Gary11
3,437 posts
70 months
|
Tartan Pixie said: Define 'they' in this case. If you're talking about the Greek people I expect you'll find they've been told many lies about the euro, they've also been paying through the nose for Germany's manufacturing and are now being asked to pay for the black hole at the center of France's banking system. I suspect you may be blaming the victim here.
If on the other hand you mean the Greek politicians who lied to the EU and lied to their electorate .... stick them in the stocks in Syntagma Square and see if your ire comes anything close to what the Greek people would like to do to them. I think "they" have to be called Greeks as they are the Greek electorate who voted these cretins in to represent them on the Euro stage,its difficult to call it sovereign debt but I think for the purpose of this thread it has to be that the Germans are providing the bailout money for Greece not the European state they so desire, how many Eurozone countries are solvent??,the Greeks are bankrupt cant pay pay what they owe,want more and shouldnt get it,the actual people are austerity bound for three more generations it wont be a "mere" lost decade for them......if they dont default...and they will, they have to there is no way they can repay, olives wont get them out of this mess,the beaches are empty of tourists their Banks are being emptied daily (like Spain), strange its not on the news!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBNZbNgCxgw&fea...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnSDjZVA4yU&fea...
|
|
|
Andy Zarse
8,056 posts
116 months
|
Mermaid said: DJRC said: Bankia shares suspended chaps. ahead of rescue details, Board meeting today at 16:30 CET And they're not disclosing the details of how much dosh they'll need to recapitalise until tomorrow when the markets are closed. It will be a minimum of Eu15BN from the figures I've seen. Spain’s FROB (Fund for Orderly Bank Reconstruction  ) had original capital of Eu9BN, which at the time it called “strongly capitalised”. In fact so strongly that this was increased to Eu15BN in February! (Again, in a regular theme for the Euro area the extra Eu6BN has not actually been paid yet! ) FROB is currently authorised by the Spanish Govt to leverage three times (although it can technically go to 6x leverage). Thus it now has Eu45BN of lending capacity of which it has so far spent approximately Eu19BN, plus God knows what it's going to have to find in the very near future once the external banking reviews have been completed. So the original Eu9BN has been streched and stretched to breaking point and it's hard to see how they'll come up with the remaining requirement without taking the begging bowl to Christine L'orange and the IMF. No wonder Spain wants to downplay possible bank bailout costs and announce awkward things on a saturday...
|
|
|
Derek Chevalier
667 posts
42 months
|
Steffan said: Derek Chevalier said: LongQ said: With respect, it is the case in the UK if you have savings or planned pensions and investments. Look at the FSA report where is said that ~45% of mortgage holders had no moneyh left after bills before the bubble burst. Millions of pople have been bailed out. I know the FSA report. Could you explain how this means, that millions of people have been bailed out, please? How many people are on a variable rate mortgage?
|
|
|
Derek Chevalier
667 posts
42 months
|
LongQ said: Derek Chevalier said: LongQ said: With respect, it is the case in the UK if you have savings or planned pensions and investments. Look at the FSA report where is said that ~45% of mortgage holders had no moneyh left after bills before the bubble burst. Millions of pople have been bailed out. Millions of people have no money left from investments and nest-egg interest payments after the interets rates plummetted. Both sectors are likely to be shafted for the foreseeable future anyway, even if interest rates go up. Of course the younger ones, presumably still in work of some sort for the most part, have some potential for partial recovery whereas the older one have less. Maybe none. Whatever they thought they ahad saved for their old age care (or to pass on to the children/taxman when they die) will have been sucked into the black hole to disappear who knows where. The younger ones may be grateful now (though probably not appreciative) but will themselves be rapidly heading towards the same financial pit. Meanwhile the world population of Superyachts grows apace, the price of expensive property in London and other major cities increases out of line with any other values and auctions of vanity objects - cars, art work, other things that are 'collectable' - report record values at the top of the market with some surprising bids. Maybe the black hole is not so opaque after all. The majority of the older ones were lucky enough to ride the biggest housing bubble in history. As for record values of collectables, are you measuring their value in currency, or something that hasn't been debased?
|
|
|
LongQ
8,840 posts
102 months
|
Derek Chevalier said: LongQ said: Derek Chevalier said: LongQ said: With respect, it is the case in the UK if you have savings or planned pensions and investments. Look at the FSA report where is said that ~45% of mortgage holders had no moneyh left after bills before the bubble burst. Millions of pople have been bailed out. Millions of people have no money left from investments and nest-egg interest payments after the interets rates plummetted. Both sectors are likely to be shafted for the foreseeable future anyway, even if interest rates go up. Of course the younger ones, presumably still in work of some sort for the most part, have some potential for partial recovery whereas the older one have less. Maybe none. Whatever they thought they ahad saved for their old age care (or to pass on to the children/taxman when they die) will have been sucked into the black hole to disappear who knows where. The younger ones may be grateful now (though probably not appreciative) but will themselves be rapidly heading towards the same financial pit. Meanwhile the world population of Superyachts grows apace, the price of expensive property in London and other major cities increases out of line with any other values and auctions of vanity objects - cars, art work, other things that are 'collectable' - report record values at the top of the market with some surprising bids. Maybe the black hole is not so opaque after all. The majority of the older ones were lucky enough to ride the biggest housing bubble in history. As for record values of collectables, are you measuring their value in currency, or something that hasn't been debased? The value of property is not an absolute, merely a relative variable that can be attacked by targeted charges and taxation at will. Ultimately the value of a house, for example, is notional. If you can't sell it for some reason it loses 'value'. If you borrow against its notional value you take on the risk of the loan (in the current market quite high if you can't service the loan) and you will be stiffed for charges and profit margins. If you reduce it to rubble I suppose the cost of the land might sometimes cover the cost of removing the rubble. Riding the bubble only works in your favour it you get out at the top and then see a large fall in a short time so that you can buy at the bottom. Or not buy at all and find somewhere to re-invest the notional solvency. In any other situation it may add to your perceived wealth but also adds to the overheads and the potential risks, all for what is simply shelter should we be reduced to basics by economic forces beyong individual control. Of the millions who have been part of the ride many, probably most, are still in the market somewhere, capital tied in as both investment and shelter. To have gained in real terms they would need to be out of the market. The only clear benefit to them currently, at least in theory, is that they have shelter and they may even own it outright. However the current notional value and what it would actually provide them with should they find themselves in a deep slump situation or should anarchy come to pass is less clear. I have never understood the logic of the property market other than as yet another Ponzi scheme but one that seems to be self correcting so long as you are still invested, fully paid up or not. But getting into that discussion misses the point that I was trying to make about where the funds for the top-end-of-the-market property purchases are coming from. (And indeed going to ...) As for the collectables, the same story really. The value is only based on having more than one person coveting the same article and being able to pay for it. It matters not how you measure the value but currency of some sort will do. Moreover my point was not that values are creeping up but that certain items are selling well beyond expectations and 'values' that are simply absurd for the utility the product provides even as a luxury trinket. How can successful investors afford such indulgence at a time when 'regular' populations are being told to 'tighten their belts'? (And have been doing so in most cases or some years already). It's a rhetorical question I suppose. They can do it because they are awash with cash gleaned from somewhere and they know that in the rarified world of the rich and super-rich there will always be opportunities to trade in trinkets as someone somewhere finds ways to divert 'wealth' for their personal purposes. So long as they can balance that (in 'PR' terms) the masses seem to admire the image and see it as a desirable trait. But flaunt it too long and too blatantly as the masses discover that the threat of them sinking into a hole is real and things may change. Historically that seems to have been the case so it seems reasonable to assume that some variant of that history will be repeated in a modern context. In times past people might be able to get away with such things (most of the time) by running or funding businesses that generated jobs. Even owning a Bank might have been thought acceptable! Now things seem to revolve around money manipulation and hedge funds with little if anything having a truly productive outcome. Gambling legalised in 'business' even though it may be frowned upon as a social problem where private addiction is concerned. Such disconnects may not be tolerated indefinitely. The French, for example, have been known to get a bit upset about obvious social imbalances. Given that most governements and bureaucracies seem to want a piece of the action for themselves, thus potentially localising the grievance, there may be rocky times ahead during which the value of one's property is brought into question. Millions left stranded by the burst bubble they were riding. The bubble means nothing in real terms. Just a Facebook moment with marginally greater credibility.
|
|
|
Tartan Pixie
600 posts
16 months
|
Gary11 said: Nice to know I'm not the only one suggesting the pooro as one of the few sensible ways out of this mess. (Or Gruro as C4 news called it, or Guildenmark as the bloke in that video called it). Devalued currency + debt relief doesn't have to mean the whole system falling apart in chaos. Unfortunately politicians and banks have been too stuck in the mud to see any options inbetween eurobonds and collapse. As for the Greeks, one of the dangers of the current situation is that it will create undue resentment. The British leader during the period when this mess was building was Tony Blair. Should I also judge every British person on the actions of that scumbag? Or should I blame the disinformation and lies peddled by the political/media circle jerk? If Greeks had known the truth I doubt they would have voted for the current situation. Andy Zarse said: FROB is currently authorised by the Spanish Govt to leverage three times (although it can technically go to 6x leverage). How is this being leveraged? Are they borrowing money backed by the euro taxpayer, backed by someone else, or are you saying the FROB has €15Bn and several times that in magic beans?
|
|
|
Irish
3,719 posts
108 months
|
A question for the currency watchers. I am currently long euros. If Greece (and possibly Ireland / Spain) leave the euro will, thanks to the Germans not firing up the presses or mutualising losses via eurobonds (and excluding ECB losses), the euro strenghten? When I look at USD, GBP and EUR the first two have been QE'ing to a massive extent but, despite the problems, europe hasn't levered up to the same extent (yet!). I have euro and sterling liablities so do not see the point in second guessing right now. No matter what I do I alway see to have knack for been on the wrong end of any decision
|
|
|
Mermaid
12,497 posts
40 months
|
Irish said: A question for the currency watchers. I am currently long euros. If Greece (and possibly Ireland / Spain) leave the euro will, thanks to the Germans not firing up the presses or mutualising losses via eurobonds (and excluding ECB losses), the euro strenghten? When I look at USD, GBP and EUR the first two have been QE'ing to a massive extent but, despite the problems, europe hasn't levered up to the same extent (yet!). I have euro and sterling liablities so do not see the point in second guessing right now. No matter what I do I alway see to have knack for been on the wrong end of any decision I expect the Euro will appreciate once has been set free, but do not see much more depreciation - 75p to the Euro?
|
|
|
Mark Benson
2,541 posts
138 months
|
Tartan Pixie said: Andy Zarse said: FROB is currently authorised by the Spanish Govt to leverage three times (although it can technically go to 6x leverage). How is this being leveraged? Are they borrowing money backed by the euro taxpayer, backed by someone else, or are you saying the FROB has €15Bn and several times that in magic beans? I was wondering the same thing, anyone care to enlighten?
|
|
|
eharding
6,397 posts
153 months
|
|
|
Derek Chevalier
667 posts
42 months
|
LongQ said: The value of property is not an absolute, merely a relative variable that can be attacked by targeted charges and taxation at will. Ultimately the value of a house, for example, is notional. If you can't sell it for some reason it loses 'value'. If you borrow against its notional value you take on the risk of the loan (in the current market quite high if you can't service the loan) and you will be stiffed for charges and profit margins. If you reduce it to rubble I suppose the cost of the land might sometimes cover the cost of removing the rubble.
Riding the bubble only works in your favour it you get out at the top and then see a large fall in a short time so that you can buy at the bottom. Or not buy at all and find somewhere to re-invest the notional solvency. In any other situation it may add to your perceived wealth but also adds to the overheads and the potential risks, all for what is simply shelter should we be reduced to basics by economic forces beyong individual control.
Of the millions who have been part of the ride many, probably most, are still in the market somewhere, capital tied in as both investment and shelter. To have gained in real terms they would need to be out of the market. The only clear benefit to them currently, at least in theory, is that they have shelter and they may even own it outright. However the current notional value and what it would actually provide them with should they find themselves in a deep slump situation or should anarchy come to pass is less clear.
I have never understood the logic of the property market other than as yet another Ponzi scheme but one that seems to be self correcting so long as you are still invested, fully paid up or not.
But getting into that discussion misses the point that I was trying to make about where the funds for the top-end-of-the-market property purchases are coming from. (And indeed going to ...)
As for the collectables, the same story really. The value is only based on having more than one person coveting the same article and being able to pay for it. It matters not how you measure the value but currency of some sort will do. Moreover my point was not that values are creeping up but that certain items are selling well beyond expectations and 'values' that are simply absurd for the utility the product provides even as a luxury trinket. How can successful investors afford such indulgence at a time when 'regular' populations are being told to 'tighten their belts'? (And have been doing so in most cases or some years already).
It's a rhetorical question I suppose. They can do it because they are awash with cash gleaned from somewhere and they know that in the rarified world of the rich and super-rich there will always be opportunities to trade in trinkets as someone somewhere finds ways to divert 'wealth' for their personal purposes. So long as they can balance that (in 'PR' terms) the masses seem to admire the image and see it as a desirable trait. But flaunt it too long and too blatantly as the masses discover that the threat of them sinking into a hole is real and things may change. Historically that seems to have been the case so it seems reasonable to assume that some variant of that history will be repeated in a modern context.
In times past people might be able to get away with such things (most of the time) by running or funding businesses that generated jobs. Even owning a Bank might have been thought acceptable! Now things seem to revolve around money manipulation and hedge funds with little if anything having a truly productive outcome. Gambling legalised in 'business' even though it may be frowned upon as a social problem where private addiction is concerned.
Such disconnects may not be tolerated indefinitely. The French, for example, have been known to get a bit upset about obvious social imbalances. Given that most governements and bureaucracies seem to want a piece of the action for themselves, thus potentially localising the grievance, there may be rocky times ahead during which the value of one's property is brought into question. Millions left stranded by the burst bubble they were riding. The bubble means nothing in real terms. Just a Facebook moment with marginally greater credibility. LongQ said: The value of property is not an absolute, merely a relative variable that can be attacked by targeted charges and taxation at will. Can't see why this is different from other investments LongQ said: Of the millions who have been part of the ride many, probably most, are still in the market somewhere, capital tied in as both investment and shelter. To have gained in real terms they would need to be out of the market. Or downsize LongQ said: I have never understood the logic of the property market other than as yet another Ponzi scheme Agreed that it is ponzi scheme LongQ said: But getting into that discussion misses the point that I was trying to make about where the funds for the top-end-of-the-market property purchases are coming from. Because borrowing is incredibly cheap if your risk profile is good, and the government have introduced moral hazard encouraging people to take more risks. They have also flooded the markets with money, leading to bubbles popping up in all areas.
|
|
|
LongQ
8,840 posts
102 months
|
Derek Chevalier said: LongQ said: The value of property is not an absolute, merely a relative variable that can be attacked by targeted charges and taxation at will. Ultimately the value of a house, for example, is notional. If you can't sell it for some reason it loses 'value'. If you borrow against its notional value you take on the risk of the loan (in the current market quite high if you can't service the loan) and you will be stiffed for charges and profit margins. If you reduce it to rubble I suppose the cost of the land might sometimes cover the cost of removing the rubble.
Riding the bubble only works in your favour it you get out at the top and then see a large fall in a short time so that you can buy at the bottom. Or not buy at all and find somewhere to re-invest the notional solvency. In any other situation it may add to your perceived wealth but also adds to the overheads and the potential risks, all for what is simply shelter should we be reduced to basics by economic forces beyong individual control.
Of the millions who have been part of the ride many, probably most, are still in the market somewhere, capital tied in as both investment and shelter. To have gained in real terms they would need to be out of the market. The only clear benefit to them currently, at least in theory, is that they have shelter and they may even own it outright. However the current notional value and what it would actually provide them with should they find themselves in a deep slump situation or should anarchy come to pass is less clear.
I have never understood the logic of the property market other than as yet another Ponzi scheme but one that seems to be self correcting so long as you are still invested, fully paid up or not.
But getting into that discussion misses the point that I was trying to make about where the funds for the top-end-of-the-market property purchases are coming from. (And indeed going to ...)
As for the collectables, the same story really. The value is only based on having more than one person coveting the same article and being able to pay for it. It matters not how you measure the value but currency of some sort will do. Moreover my point was not that values are creeping up but that certain items are selling well beyond expectations and 'values' that are simply absurd for the utility the product provides even as a luxury trinket. How can successful investors afford such indulgence at a time when 'regular' populations are being told to 'tighten their belts'? (And have been doing so in most cases or some years already).
It's a rhetorical question I suppose. They can do it because they are awash with cash gleaned from somewhere and they know that in the rarified world of the rich and super-rich there will always be opportunities to trade in trinkets as someone somewhere finds ways to divert 'wealth' for their personal purposes. So long as they can balance that (in 'PR' terms) the masses seem to admire the image and see it as a desirable trait. But flaunt it too long and too blatantly as the masses discover that the threat of them sinking into a hole is real and things may change. Historically that seems to have been the case so it seems reasonable to assume that some variant of that history will be repeated in a modern context.
In times past people might be able to get away with such things (most of the time) by running or funding businesses that generated jobs. Even owning a Bank might have been thought acceptable! Now things seem to revolve around money manipulation and hedge funds with little if anything having a truly productive outcome. Gambling legalised in 'business' even though it may be frowned upon as a social problem where private addiction is concerned.
Such disconnects may not be tolerated indefinitely. The French, for example, have been known to get a bit upset about obvious social imbalances. Given that most governements and bureaucracies seem to want a piece of the action for themselves, thus potentially localising the grievance, there may be rocky times ahead during which the value of one's property is brought into question. Millions left stranded by the burst bubble they were riding. The bubble means nothing in real terms. Just a Facebook moment with marginally greater credibility. Derek Chevalier said: LongQ said: The value of property is not an absolute, merely a relative variable that can be attacked by targeted charges and taxation at will. Can't see why this is different from other investments In theory it isn't. But it's a fixed asset at a known location and an easy target from several angles for charges and taxation. It also tends to be something that is important to the people who own it - they live there and become quite attached to it. It's personal, for most people, not just an investment. People make silly investment decisions when things are personal. Of course the super rich can make such decisions because the values mean little to them. Derek Chevalier said: LongQ said: Of the millions who have been part of the ride many, probably most, are still in the market somewhere, capital tied in as both investment and shelter. To have gained in real terms they would need to be out of the market. Or downsize How is that a gain? What if they are already pretty much at the bottom of the size chain (other than taking on a one bedroom flat in a tenement somewhere? And you assume that someone will be in a position to buy the property (which may become a rare position to be in) when the moment to downsize arrives. Smaller properties are not necessarily so much less expensive to buy (epsecially after all costs are taken into account) that the reduced overheads that MAY come about are really viable, together with whatever capital can be extracted from the deal, to benefit one's investment decision. Things are probably different if downsizing from the top of the market properties. Derek Chevalier said: LongQ said: But getting into that discussion misses the point that I was trying to make about where the funds for the top-end-of-the-market property purchases are coming from. Because borrowing is incredibly cheap if your risk profile is good, and the government have introduced moral hazard encouraging people to take more risks. They have also flooded the markets with money, leading to bubbles popping up in all areas. But at the top of the market the risk profile that obtains so much approval is likely based on crapping on those in the lower orders aided and abetted by ignorant (or maybe not so ignorant?) politicians. The larger parts of the money redistribution seem to be going in directions that are not at their core anything to do with productivity and growth - just 'money' churn where everyone dips in as the bowl passes and no one cares how or where it is refilled so long as someone else is doing it. Keep on that track for long enough and the savings and pension coffers will be dry with everyone suffering a poor risk profile. Unless something happens before that things may be a bit too interesting for comfort when the day arrives.
|
|
|
Andy Zarse
8,056 posts
116 months
|
Mark Benson said: Tartan Pixie said: Andy Zarse said: FROB is currently authorised by the Spanish Govt to leverage three times (although it can technically go to 6x leverage). How is this being leveraged? Are they borrowing money backed by the euro taxpayer, backed by someone else, or are you saying the FROB has €15Bn and several times that in magic beans? I was wondering the same thing, anyone care to enlighten? It is guaranteed by the Kingdom of Spain. Who underwrites Spain is anyone's guess. The Spanish people firstly I reckon, but when they've run out of money they'll come back to the IMF/ECB etc I guess. Another stunning example of the socialisation of banking losses. AFAIUI the FROB has Eu9BN of actual money, although the Govt has promised a further Eu6Bn to bring the total up to Eu15BN, this amount has not yet been paid (are you surprised when the Govt is reduced to issuing 6 month T bills just to keep the whole show on the road!) They are leveraging 3x so far. So to be kind, assuming the Govt cough up the extra Eu6BN, then they have a theoretical Eu45Bn in the warchest. How is this for stupidity? As I said, the FROB's leverage can be increased up to 6x, it does this with the approval of the Ministry Of Economy and Competitiveness. So if leverage of 6x is such a great thing later on as the crisis deepens, then why not have it now? Increasing leverage into a crisis is the sort of thing that Lehman Bros, Northern Rock, Anglo-Irish Bank and RBS managed, how did that work out? Waiting for a crisis and then increasing leverage would be an even worse tactic! Again can-kicking is okay, but not if the future is worse than the present, which of course it will be
|
|
