Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

if you wanted to discuss bankers and banking, that would have been a different and, as far as i am concerned, a very dull subject

however, i am VERY interested in the concept and actuality of foodbanks, but i am NOT prepared to enter discussion with you or the other 2 nutters while you can only rant from your soapboxes

Well surely this is why we have all these foodbanks because of the recession of 2008.

I we hadnt had the 2008 recession Im sure food banks wouldnt be prevelant like they are now.

By definition.........

Surely Bankers more than any group are responsible for the growth of foodbanks but yet they continue to prosper and the rest of us have to pick up the tab.

Im not on my soap box here just making what I feel is a valid point.

Bankers in general did not cause the recession. It was the investment arms of the banks and a handful of employees in those sectors who were partially at fault. Don't forget the man on the Clapham omnibus who gobbled up the cheap credit and borrowed far more than they could afford to pay back. The banks and building societies were also culpable in granting that credit.

The US housing finance system is also responsible in the sub-prime arena. The US has a fundamentally different and inherently dangerous system for mortgages. If you cannot pay your mortgage in the US then you can hand back the keys and walk away from the house and the debt. This leaves the banks with the negative equity and the debt. Many mortgages were granted on no deposit and huge multiples of salary in the US. It became just as cheap to pay a mortgage as to pay rent so why not buy as there were no credit checks. When the economics of the situation catch up with you then just move out.

The derivatives based on those properties also became sub-prime. It was largely the US that caused the financial meltdown by their mishandling of the situation when the shit hit the fan.

The Labour government caused our own crisis by waiting for five days before guaranteeing Northern Rock deposits. By then postal customers had sent in withdrawal letters. As usual it was too little and too late.

The growth of food banks is just down to the Trussel Trust. I am not suggesting that increasing them is a bad thing, but it does not indicate an increasing need. If there was an increasing need then the numbers served by each food bank would be increasing at the rate of the total increases. This is not the case.

Absolute rubish. The labour government did not cause our own crisis. It was a World Banking crisis that escalated from one country to another.

It is true that banks were far to lax/easy giving credit to customers. But the economy was booming at the time. They were good times for all.

You do talk some s-it at times Hays.

The economy was only booming on consumer spending funded by cheap credit.

Yep cheap credit but labour werent responsible for that. The Bankers were.

''They were good times for all''.
So good that anyone could get credit whether they could pay back or not.
So good that mortgages could be acquired @ 125%
So good that millions could live comfortably without having to go to work
So good that the Labour government spent every penny and racked up debt for an already over borrowed consumer.

They were good times on borrowed time.
2517

And we all know who was responsible for cheap credit...... yes it was Maggie Thatcher.

The phrase Big Bang, used in reference to the sudden deregulation of financial markets, was coined to describe measures, including abolition of fixed commission charges and of the distinction between stockjobbers and stockbrokers on the London Stock Exchange and change from open-outcry to electronic, screen-based trading, enacted by the United Kingdom government in 1986.
The day the London Stock Exchange's rules changed on 27 October 1986 was dubbed the "Big Bang" because of the increase in market activity expected from an aggregation of measures designed to alter the structure of the financial market.

In the UK, Big Bang became one of the cornerstones of the Thatcher government's reform programme. Prior to these reforms, the once-dominant financial institutions of the City of London were failing to compete with foreign banking. While London was still a global centre of finance, it had been surpassed by New York, and was in danger of falling still further behind.
Thatcher's government claimed that the two problems behind the decline of London banking were overregulation and the dominance of elitist old boy networks and that the solution lay in the free market doctrines of unfettered competition and meritocracy............................ends

In other words Thatcher deregulated the Banking System and set up the IT systems that led to the collapse of 2008.

George........... Maggies deregulation led to your list of mistakes above.

gf--I suppose it was maggie that raided the pension funds leaving millions of near pensioners to survive on a third of what they expected. Times were good for them, not.
2517

........... ''Maggies deregulation led to your list of mistakes above''.
No, 13 years of Labour mis-rule.
2517

If we hadn't had the 2008 recession I'm sure foodbanks wouldn't be as prevalent as they are now
That much is certainly true ...... However, they would still most definitely be needed - I think the concept only came into being around 2004 - and certainly they provide a very useful service for those in need, just as does sheltered housing and the like.

A little question, to which you may not know the answer ....
From where do foodbanks get their supplies?
If at least some of the produce is notionally past its sell by date, then it also says something about the nonsense or application of those regs



I found last night's programme interesting, as much as anything else, for how one qualifies to take advantage of these stores.

I think some stores set their own rules - show your bank statement, though what happens if you don't have a bank? - which is sort of ok, but then you could easily get "for uk citizens only" or somesuch horror.

I certainly don't think there should be yet another layer of gov't bureaucracy, as it's too long-winded and cumbersome to start with ..... and you need to eat TODAY

On the other hand, foodbanks have to be selective in whom they can serve or they'll be stripped in seconds by "traders" and the like

The other side of the argument is that foodbanks mustn't become an easy option for those who have got themselves into debt, often foolishly, or want to keep smoking, running a car, having the latest cell phone etc.

In that respect, Edwina was correct that people have to learn, perhaps very harshly, that if you keep living beyond your means, you will ultimately suffer, and automatic bailout should not be as of right



Lots of other interesting angles to explore too

GF,

The "Bankers" were responsible for not restricting "loans" or "credit supply", but the borrowers also had a responsibility by borrowing in excess of capability to "repay" their debts. (Greed.)

Both sides were greedy and irresponsible, but one expected more of the "Banks" and government could have seen the problem occurring and stepped in and possibly reduced the UK's problems.

But you can recall the cries from the torrids in the period 2004 on, when any mention was made of curbing and regulating the city and financial services.

Also, the public was in "loads of money" phase and some guessed that any "collapse" would be as big as occurred.

=======

But "charity food banks" are a disgrace in a "civilised" society!

Welcome back to the 1920s.

George you say above but pensioners have suffered terribly under this present government with low interest rates on savings and assets. Have you not noticed and as for your point above that millions could live comfourtably without going to work is just not accurate their were far less people unemployed then than their is now.

sticky - before everything gets swamped yet again, you have what i think is a reasonable apolitical response to a point you raised

George your wrong again, even Thatchers chancellor admits it was Maggies fault.....

Although the "Big Bang" eased stock market transactions there is a debate in the UK about how far it affected the 2007–2012 global financial crisis. In 2010, Nigel Lawson, Thatcher's Chancellor at the time, appeared on the Analysis program to discuss banking reform, explaining that the 2007–2012 global financial crisis was an unintended consequence of the "Big Bang". He said that UK investment banks, previously very cautious with what was their own money, had merged with high street banks putting depositors' savings at risk............ends

Cant be clearer than that.....Maggies own chancellor pinning the blame on Thatchers deregulation of the banks.

Some people have short memories.

And whats more as Hays points out above the economic recovery we HAVE NOW is based on cheap consumer credit.

Food banks started in 2000. They changed their model and expanded as a franchise operation from 2004.

Cynic are you sure you are not mixing up food banks with food/soup kitchens for those of no fixed abode??? are your sure your source is not doing this??.

Perhaps, the problem with the poor, unemployed and feckless is that they wish the pleasures and satisfaction of the more affluent in society, whose wealth is often not based on "ability", hard work and diligence, but due to the beds they were born in and the schools their parents could afford to pack them off to, in order relieve themselves of their responsibility.

(Often, lucky children, even if stunted in many ways.)