The last hope of the USA

[Neil]

the financial sector, and the financial sector alone are responsible .

That's simply not true.

I'm sorry, but it simply is true - look at the remit of bodies like the FSA.

But we're not going to agree so I'll leave it at that.

Now that, quite probably is true - but if you write absolutes, that aren't absolutes, I'll point out the error of your ways.

The general public simply can't be regulated in the way you imply. However, organised business, operating as "experts" in a market with vulenerable, inccompetent, or simply out-of-touch, most certainly are expected to be so - and you can think of "expected" to have a bit more teeth to it.

Maybe in your view that's not as it should be - but that is somewhat misaligned with reality. We are where we are - society is where it is - and banks and financial instituitions are mostly regulated.

 

[technodup]

the financial sector, and the financial sector alone are responsible .

That's simply not true.

I'm sorry, but it simply is true - look at the remit of bodies like the FSA.

1. I don't need to, I used to work in an FSA regulated industry and 2. you're really missing the point.

But we're not going to agree so I'll leave it at that.

Now that, quite probably is true - but if you write absolutes, that aren't absolutes, I'll point out the error of your ways.

The general public simply can't be regulated in the way you imply. However, organised business, operating as "experts" in a market with vulenerable, inccompetent, or simply out-of-touch, most certainly are expected to be so - and you can think of "expected" to have a bit more teeth to it.

Maybe in your view that's not as it should be - but that is somewhat misaligned with reality. We are where we are - society is where it is - and banks and financial instituitions are mostly regulated.

You're arguing with yourself now, at no point have I said banks were blameless, or shouldn't be (better) regulated, or that the public can be. My point is that the public should be, by means of personal responsibility (self regulation if you like) which has long since gone out of fashion.

But in a sense that's understandable, as governments have been tacitly encouraging individual spending not just with their own reckless splurging on public services, infrastructure and vanity projects but also by way of keeping interest rates rock bottom and endlessly talking of growth, low unemployment, no more boom and bust etc. With that and the relentless media and advertisers convincing the plebs they can't watch TV on less than 48" or drive a car over a year old is it any wonder we're in this state?

If I earn £20k and ask for a mortgage of £500k and the bank says yes you would have that as their fault. I'd agree but I'd add that I would be a completely irresponsible and fantasist dick to ask in the first place. I think more people than you'll admit to are coming round to my way of thinking, even though they might not admit it.

Carry on trying to point out the "error of my ways" if you like but I believe it's sometimes necessary to point the finger at oneself first, in spite of any easier targets available.

 

[Neil]

the financial sector, and the financial sector alone are responsible .

That's simply not true.

I'm sorry, but it simply is true - look at the remit of bodies like the FSA.

1. I don't need to, I used to work in an FSA regulated industry

So did I.

and 2. you're really missing the point.

No, I'm not - he's behind you.

You're desperately trying to assert that social responsibility should prevail in society - in fact more than that, should be held responsible.

Maybe in an ideal world - but it's not.

But we're not going to agree so I'll leave it at that.

Now that, quite probably is true - but if you write absolutes, that aren't absolutes, I'll point out the error of your ways.

The general public simply can't be regulated in the way you imply. However, organised business, operating as "experts" in a market with vulenerable, inccompetent, or simply out-of-touch, most certainly are expected to be so - and you can think of "expected" to have a bit more teeth to it.

Maybe in your view that's not as it should be - but that is somewhat misaligned with reality. We are where we are - society is where it is - and banks and financial instituitions are mostly regulated.

You're arguing with yourself now, at no point have I said banks were blameless, or shouldn't be (better) regulated, or that the public can be. My point is that the public should be, by means of personal responsibility (self regulation if you like) which has long since gone out of fashion.

Ok, now come back down to reality.

Since when has the public been comprehensively trustable to self regulate?

Look at the legal system.

A good analogy - in some ways there's certain parallels to money lending - prescription medication.

Could we trust the public to self-regulate? Could we hell.

That's why for legally obtained, regulated means of getting then, the people giving them out are solely responsible for doing so correctly.

That's how that works. Big business lending money, has to be regulated in a similar fashion.

If I earn £20k and ask for a mortgage of £500k and the bank says yes you would have that as their fault. I'd agree but I'd add that I would be a completely irresponsible and fantasist dick to ask in the first place. I think more people than you'll admit to are coming round to my way of thinking, even though they might not admit it.

So you agree, then, the responsibility, the regulation, is completely in the banking industry's domain - whether there are complete dicks, or otherwise, attempting to borrow things they haven't the means to pay back.

There's always going to be people in society that would try - with money, and other things - whether out of fecklessness, impulsiveness, compulsiveness, or deviousnous - makes no real difference. Somebody has to play gatekeeper. Where banks lend money, that's them. Where the health service prescribes medicines, it's whomever is doing the prescribing.

Carry on trying to point out the "error of my ways" if you like but I believe it's sometimes necessary to point the finger at oneself first, in spite of any easier targets available.

I don't think I really need to.

I think you actually agree with me, as stated above - I suspect you just don't want too.

Idealism is one thing - but that social responsibility is never going to happen - it's not done in the preceeding history, why would you imagine that the near future would offer any enlightenment?

 

[technodup]

So you agree, then, the responsibility, the regulation, is completely in the banking industry's domain - whether there are complete dicks, or otherwise, attempting to borrow things they haven't the means to pay back.

I've never disagreed. But I also believe that individuals should also be responsible for and by themselves. Why you think this is so difficult or undesirable I'm really not sure.

There's always going to be people in society that would try - with money, and other things - whether out of fecklessness, impulsiveness, compulsiveness, or deviousnous - makes no real difference. Somebody has to play gatekeeper. Where banks lend money, that's them. Where the health service prescribes medicines, it's whomever is doing the prescribing.

I'm not sure the two are really comparable but maybe if the NHS had the same attitude as banks the numbers of these idiots would decline. Who the fnck asks for drugs they don't need?

Idealism is one thing - but that social responsibility is never going to happen - it's not done in the preceeding history, why would you imagine that the near future would offer any enlightenment?

Personal credit/debt was nowhere near as prevalent just a few decades ago. Whether that was due to better controls or the fact debt was socially frowned upon I'm not sure. I'd expect it to be a combination, so I don't see why that couldn't happen again. In fact I think it is already happening, those who've had their fingers burnt this time won't be going back for more if they can help it.

I (mostly) agree with you on regulation of banking practices. I fail to understand why you cannot countenance individuals taking ownership of their actions. It would obviously be some (more), not all but any is better than none imo. Hey ho.

 

[Neil]

So you agree, then, the responsibility, the regulation, is completely in the banking industry's domain - whether there are complete dicks, or otherwise, attempting to borrow things they haven't the means to pay back.

I've never disagreed.

You did at first - but your argument seems to have mellowed - or at least got more relevant as it's progressed.

Where we came in, was you saying it wasn't all the banking industries fault about lending money irresponsibly. But you now agree, it is their responsibility - and they are held to account over it.

Where we differed, was you, at first, trying to apply mitigation to the banking sector, based on their being little or no self-regulation for some people applying to borrow. If we could always be happy that people would show nous when asking to borrow, there'd be no need to verify it.

But there is, and always has been. You might say, above certain levels, there's perhaps more accurate info (largely) now - but I'd say in earlier times there was more scrutiny, and more personal decisions. I'm not so sure I'd go as far as to say that the newer approach is completely more flawed than older ideas on it - but it's surely had an affect, all the same.

But I also believe that individuals should also be responsible for and by themselves. Why you think this is so difficult or undesirable I'm really not sure.

I don't think it's undesirable - I think it's unrealistic.

There's always going to be people in society that would try - with money, and other things - whether out of fecklessness, impulsiveness, compulsiveness, or deviousnous - makes no real difference. Somebody has to play gatekeeper. Where banks lend money, that's them. Where the health service prescribes medicines, it's whomever is doing the prescribing.

I'm not sure the two are really comparable but maybe if the NHS had the same attitude as banks the numbers of these idiots would decline. Who the fnck asks for drugs they don't need?

?

You have thought that through, haven't you?

Loads - and I truly mean loads of people would get access to all sorts of drugs, for all sorts of reasons, if they could, and there wasn't the obstruction of needing a doctor (or similarly qualified health professional) to prescribe them.

I'm not talking about purely drug addicts, the feckless, the deluded, the overconfident, the calculating - pretty much all the same traits I pointed out would (and probably do) try and borrow money they can't really afford.

People suffering regular painful conditions, would be after bigger, better pain relief. The vain, athletes, and other people participating in various sports would get PEDs and other drugs to assist their goals (and for many, that doesn't just include anabolic steriods - things like insulin, GH, thermogenics (eg DNP, various kinds of amphetamines, diuretics), EPO and similar drugs) - or their perception of their goals. Some of those would use breast cancer drug treatments to counter some of the downsides of anabolic steriod use.

You'd have casual / social drug users (I don't really mean drug addicts, I mean people who just use drugs as a lifestyle choice, but aren't addicted) who'd want all sorts.

The depressed and those with psychological conditions would no doubt have plenty of wants, there.

Not to mention hypercondriacs, and other deluded people who'd find all sorts of reasons for various drugs.

And of course, I'm sure plenty of men, who perhaps wouldn't dream of much else in the way of drug use, would want those special pills, that leave a standing impression.

Then, of course, you'd have addicts...

I think the two scenarios show clear parallels, sure there's maybe not quite the same degree of risk in lending money - but I suspect quite similar (even if differing demographics) demands for the two - and both have "black market" options.

It just so happens that both are regulated, and both have industries and "professionals" that have to act as gatekeeper.

Idealism is one thing - but that social responsibility is never going to happen - it's not done in the preceeding history, why would you imagine that the near future would offer any enlightenment?

Personal credit/debt was nowhere near as prevalent just a few decades ago. Whether that was due to better controls or the fact debt was socially frowned upon I'm not sure. I'd expect it to be a combination, so I don't see why that couldn't happen again.

You make some lucid points, there - I'd say there's certainly several reasons for the radically increased amounts of lending. In my experience, over the decades it's certainly been easier to borrow money. I think it's fair comment to mention that there's some societal / attitude changes - some of that, though, are generalisms - society is much more a meritocracy in modern times, than it was in previous times - where tradition, dogma and rhetoric influenced peoples' attitudes much more.

Some of those floodgates won't get easily closed, though - and whilst it surely is multi-factoral, is there some degree of cause and effect, or was it all inevitable?

Gradual change in societal behaviour isn't just applicable to financial attitudes. Did money get easier to borrow simply because the banks and financial institutions tacitly pursued a poignant change in approach - or was that a reaction to a change in societal attitudes in behaviour - was it cold hard calculation, or simply an evolution?

In fact I think it is already happening, those who've had their fingers burnt this time won't be going back for more if they can help it.

Well I think there will always be a certain percentage of people who learn and adapt.

Thing is, though, there's always other things - like IVAs and debt consolidation companies - who kind of have an impact on the mindset of many in society.

They'll be many people who'll say something like: "Well the banks let me borrow the money, therefore it's their problem if I couldn't afford it...". An irksome, perhaps offensive attitude - but all the same, I know many hold that or similar beliefs. It's the way society has evolved - blame is always somebody elses'.

Fighting against that mindset and how society has evolved, and seems determined to continue, I suspect any significant shift in expectations of personal responsiblity are somewhat futile.

I (mostly) agree with you on regulation of banking practices. I fail to understand why you cannot countenance individuals taking ownership of their actions. It would obviously be some (more), not all but any is better than none imo. Hey ho.

Don't get me wrong - I love the idea of more personal responsibility. I just think it's most unlikely.

Idealism may be admirable - but I just think it's quite improbable.

Society can't be trusted to be responsible, whether it ever truly was, I'm quite unsure - attitudes may have altered the desire and acceptability, but I'm not convinced society was ever, comprehensively, more self controlled on these sorts of things - that's why we have gatekeepers, and regulatory systems to hopefully moderate that - I think general attitudes had a significant influence, but I also think availability was much more restricted.

 

[technodup]

So you agree, then, the responsibility, the regulation, is completely in the banking industry's domain - whether there are complete dicks, or otherwise, attempting to borrow things they haven't the means to pay back.

I've never disagreed.

You did at first - but your argument seems to have mellowed - or at least got more relevant as it's progressed.

Where we came in, was you saying it wasn't all the banking industries fault about lending money irresponsibly. But you now agree, it is their responsibility - and they are held to account over it.

The lending is their responsibility but the borrowing is not, that's the distinction I'm trying to make. My position hasn't changed in the slightest.

Don't get me wrong - I love the idea of more personal responsibility. I just think it's most unlikely.

Idealism may be admirable - but I just think it's quite improbable.

Society can't be trusted to be responsible,

Obviously there will be some who can't but it is possible for legislators to shift attitudes and behaviours through measures such as supply and pricing. See tobacco as an example, since the 60s when credit was hard to come by attitudes to smoking have changed completely, due in large part to regulation and taxes by successive governments. Attitudes to drink driving, seatbelt use, racism, sexism and many more have changed beyond recognition in a generation. Who's to say in 30 years credit isn't frowned upon in the same way?

but I also think availability was much more restricted.

It was. No TV loan shark firms or credit cards, and an actual bank manager to make a decision in person. Not to mention women being pretty much excluded from the market altogether. I'm not saying we need to go back that far, and usually I'm resistant to such government interference but it would be possible to achieve given the right measures over time. Starting with some long overdue financial eduction in schools.

It may be idealism (I'd argue it was ultimately pragmatism) but that doesn't make it undesirable or impossible.

I think we've derailed the Ron Paul thread enough now, although I'm sure Ron would have something interesting to say on it.

 

[Neil]

So you agree, then, the responsibility, the regulation, is completely in the banking industry's domain - whether there are complete dicks, or otherwise, attempting to borrow things they haven't the means to pay back.

I've never disagreed.

You did at first - but your argument seems to have mellowed - or at least got more relevant as it's progressed.

Where we came in, was you saying it wasn't all the banking industries fault about lending money irresponsibly. But you now agree, it is their responsibility - and they are held to account over it.

The lending is their responsibility but the borrowing is not, that's the distinction I'm trying to make. My position hasn't changed in the slightest.

That's just semantics, really.

We're only really talking about the lending the banks did, described from the perspective of the customer, then you'd class it as borrowing.

All the same, banks and financial insitutions are regulated in an attempt to ensure they do it responsibly, only naivety or idealism, expects that the public will do so responsibly.

None of that, lets the banking institutions off for being lax on this front - they are regulated on this, the public is not. And that's an intrinsic link - they are regulated on this because the public is not.

Don't get me wrong - I love the idea of more personal responsibility. I just think it's most unlikely.

Idealism may be admirable - but I just think it's quite improbable.

Society can't be trusted to be responsible,

Obviously there will be some who can't but it is possible for legislators to shift attitudes and behaviours through measures such as supply and pricing. See tobacco as an example, since the 60s when credit was hard to come by attitudes to smoking have changed completely, due in large part to regulation and taxes by successive governments. Attitudes to drink driving, seatbelt use, racism, sexism and many more have changed beyond recognition in a generation. Who's to say in 30 years credit isn't frowned upon in the same way?

There's no clear analogies, there.

Beyond irresponsible lending, the government, and financial sector has become much more dependent. What's the driving force to try and do anything against making profit, except to ensure it's done responsibly?

Morality? Idealism?

but I also think availability was much more restricted.

It was. No TV loan shark firms or credit cards, and an actual bank manager to make a decision in person. Not to mention women being pretty much excluded from the market altogether. I'm not saying we need to go back that far, and usually I'm resistant to such government interference but it would be possible to achieve given the right measures over time.

See this is what happens, though, when an argument goes on for so long - the main or initial point gets lost.

What's the motivation for all that? Who benefits?

Most of the people that would have to support that probably make use.

You're talking about attitude change - what you were arguing against was the claim that banks were being lax and irresponsible - they were, that's fair criticism - they were bang to rights on that.

Starting with some long overdue financial eduction in schools.

Agreed - although I'm not sure of it's efficacy.

In the past, people didn't just learn about morality, ideal practices, and how to be a good and effective adult member in society, in the classroom, or swish, Swiss finishing schools.

They did so because family, and their exposure to society conditioned them so.

It may be idealism (I'd argue it was ultimately pragmatism) but that doesn't make it undesirable or impossible.

I'd agree - I don't think it is undesirable, nor impossible.

Quite unlikely, and extremely difficult, with perhaps no true up-side for most that would have to commit to making it work, though.

I think we've derailed the Ron Paul thread enough now, although I'm sure Ron would have something interesting to say on it.

He seems pretty quiet on this thread, doesn't sound much cop at all to me...

 

[technodup]

Society can't be trusted to be responsible,

Obviously there will be some who can't but it is possible for legislators to shift attitudes and behaviours through measures such as supply and pricing. See tobacco as an example, since the 60s when credit was hard to come by attitudes to smoking have changed completely, due in large part to regulation and taxes by successive governments. Attitudes to drink driving, seatbelt use, racism, sexism and many more have changed beyond recognition in a generation. Who's to say in 30 years credit isn't frowned upon in the same way?

There's no clear analogies, there.

Well there's not if you insist on seeing the problem from one side. If you start to accept that just maybe individuals owe some responsibility for their actions then you can start to explore a wider range of solutions.

Regulation can't solve everything. I know of several people who connived to get around the existing regulations re mortgages to access funds they shouldn't have. Certainly the banks were at fault for allowing such lax controls but those people falsifying salaries, claiming self-employment whilst a student etc are hardly without blame imo. We wouldn't need so much regulation stick if we could persuade more people that financial self restraint is a laudable aim.

That is pretty much the only point I've ever tried to make. And that really is the last I'm saying on it, I'm bored stiff now.

 

[Bram J]

I think we've derailed the Ron Paul thread enough now, although I'm sure Ron would have something interesting to say on it.

No problem, I like a good discussion every now and then.

 

[technodup]

I think we've derailed the Ron Paul thread enough now, although I'm sure Ron would have something interesting to say on it.

No problem, I like a good discussion every now and then.

I know I shouldn't but just can't help myself.

If only everyone had the same values as me...