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.

Amazing.....! thanks this is me, too much influence from the USA !.

Greekman ..I am very moral. You have hurt me..take the m away.even more so! lol

Come, come Tabasco...we shall live to fight again !,.....vive la revolution (as long as my earnings keep coming in) !.

OK then RF you have talked me into it you silver tongued smoothy!..Bo**ocks to Abama.anything in America with Democratic in the title is advisable to give a huge swerveI dont think it means the same thing in their dictionary.

Well it's Obama.....he has a lot to sort out and make this a better world....he will have his hands full !.

The only problem is that he is intent of pouring 'gas' on the burning economy. Low interest rates ant too much cash sloshing around caused the problems and guess what he intends to do?

Barack Obama who has raised more than $600 million since he announced his candidacy in February 2007 has an awful lot of favours to repay on Wall StreetI think this could end in tearsBush is not a hard act to follow..But..
The US national debt is currently running at $10.2 trillion in September 2008.. the national debt clock had to have the digital dollar sign eliminated to make space for an extra digit the 1″ in $10 trillion. According to the Associated Press there is now a new National Debt Clock being made to allow for a quadrillion dollar debt its reported to be completed early 2009.

I understand Obama has been seeking the Messiah's (Gordon Browns) advice re the economy, as Gordon being the more experienced statesman. So the USA have nothing (financially) to worry about then.

LOL

US election thoughts;

Our colonial cousins across the pond are simple folk, apt to adopting and understanding very simple notions. Complex international policy has to be summed up for them in terms of goodies and baddies. Their grasp of policy is only bettered (worsened?) by their grasp of good English, and that is saying something.
In my opinion, the short term future for Uncle Sam looks fairly bright. One can almost see the citizens of that former colony strapping a dead moose to their car bonnet (not a hood you ignoramous), leaning out of the car window with a can of Colt 45 and whooping and hollering down the streets in anticipation of a bright new dawn, under a young and vibrant president.
To be fair, we did the same in an understated British kind of way, when TB was elected.
This hope of a new age reminds me somewhat of the euphoria surrounding JFK (I was not born, but I have read of it). Lets face it. Every nation on earth depends for its economic recovery on those simple Americans feeling good and buying things, and I think the new Mr President may instill a bit of that.
As for the longer term I'm not so sure.
Our redneck friends are very keen on conservative (with an enormous "C"), middle aged white men who will not rock any boats (other than commie ones that they can blast out of the water). So to elect Mr Obama is a little odd, and if things go a bit awry, they will be very unforgiving.
I do not envy him his job. He has his work cut out after a brief honeymoon period, and failure may well knock his causes of equality, equity, moderation, liberalism and negotiation back at least a generation.
The really interesting bit is that a media who pretend to be ultra politically correct, in a nation that invented political correctness have majored on one thing. Not policy, but Skin colour, with a small mention of African roots.
Could anyone tell me where Mr McCains dad comes from?

Re economic recovery.

Sub Prime.
Lending to those who cant pay and then selling the packaged loans on to others that also did not understand, but never thought, 'Hang on a mo, so this package that is full of c**p that you don't want, you want me to buy as an investment', Yes please, because I can sell it on to an even thicker person/institution for a profit.
As the sub prime market did not cause any problems till the passing of the parcel stopped, I blame the person/institution who went and spoiled it all by having a sneaky look inside.
Governments are always warning us of Boiler House scams so how come they did not see this coming.
As to the present financial state of the world, yes we will get out of it but as it will rely on those that got us into this mess in the first place, my personal opinion is that it won't be until 2020 or beyond.
Not usually a pessimist but I think that many Governments, including ours are hiding the full extent of the problem, in the same way as the financial institutions did, re write downs, and their dept book.
After all Gordon Brown has so many items of dept that do not appear in the accounts, who in their right mind thinks that he is going to be any more open re this.
Hope I'm wrong but!
Any thoughts?

Why not leave this country and try another one. I am sure somebody will love you!



8-)

Hi Fred,

Agree that we, including myself probably knock this country too much and that compared to many countries we have many things that are far better. I had one of those days yesterday, you know, grey skies, grey mood. It's the loss of many things over the last few years that wind me up. It's actually the love of this country that make me despondent on where things appear to be heading.
As to leaving the country. I keep doing that but they keep sending me back, so possibly you are wrong, and nobody loves me. Oh dear, depressed again.

Hi Greekman.if Freds having a go at you he must have had an off daywarm pint?I have provoked him many a time to get a handle on his views.absolute gentleman!

Morning Tabasco,

No prob re Fred's post. People who continually knock this country often wind me up as well.
When I was far younger I got a bit fed up with the older generation with their, 'When I were a lad' and 'In the good old days' comments. Well now I'm one of them (60) I find it is often me looking back with rose tinted glasses, summers were warmer, winters colder, snow every Xmas, Beer 2 bob a pint, chips 6 pence a bag and a tank full of petrol about 2. UK Governments being more democratic (but not much).
I don't know how old Fred is but I bet when he gets toward 60 there is a good chance he will join the Victor Meldrew brigade.
As to this country. I travel a fair bit and often hear people on holiday say that they would love to live in certain countries, but I appreciate that holidaying and living in a country are very different, although many of my ex colleagues have emigrated, mainly due to the high cost of living and high taxes.

So as the Yanks say, 'have a good day all' including FRED.

It is an idiotic decision - too much easy credit got us into this position in the first place and now the Bank pours petrol on the flames. This will make things much worse in the medium/long term.

It is an idiotic decision.....Totally agree.
This huge interest rate cut is good for the very short term but is only building up problems for later. If this cut trickles down to the loan rates and makes it easier for businesses to borrow then yes, this is needed to kick start the economy, but I doubt it will do more than make it easier for the general public to borrow even more to add to an already unmanageable dept.
The question that should be asked re any interest rate drop, must be 'Will the banks be more responsible re lending' as it is already evident that they are reluctant to lend, full stop.
The answer must be Tax Cuts, as this will tempt high street spending, without the temptation to borrow to spend.
Obviously the augment against is that the government can't afford such cuts, but surely without these cuts the government money pot will suffer a worse fate due to higher unemployment resulting in more benefit payments plus less income/corporation tax received, in addition to lower VAT tax income.
Governments (especially those with this governments short term remaining) are only concerned with the short term. They don't care what the next generations future is. The only number they are interested in is NUMBER 1.

on interest rate cuts?
By Tony Bonsignore | 10:20:00 | 06 November 2008

It almost feels as if Peter Mandelson never went away.

Barely a month after his shock return to UK government after seven years in exile, the self-appointed Master of the Dark Arts of Spin delivered a classic googly to the banks on Tuesday when he openly warned that an angry British public was fully expecting to feel the benefit from todays interest rate cut.

I have to say when official rates are being cut it is not unreasonable for the customers to expect to see some benefits, Mandelson told Radio 4s Today programme. We are taking very strong action if it appears the banks are standing in the way of what the government is doing then I think many banking customers are going to be asking difficult questions of the banks.

Everyone would be surprised and disappointed if the banks in time were not to respond, Mandelson concluded in a bravura performance that no doubt made Tony Blair swell with pride.

The problem, of course, is that Mandelson is dealing in carefully calculated half-truths and misrepresentations, and that matters are far more complex than he or Gordon Brown are prepared to acknowledge.

Indeed if Mandelson made any error, it was giving the banks two full days to respond to his accusations, an opportunity which they have not been slow to grasp.

The matter boils to down to a few simple questions. Firstly, do the banks have the ability to pass on cuts in the official interest rate to borrowers? Second, are they doing so if they can? And, finally, if not, then why?

Mandelsons reply implies that the answer to the first question is yes, and that to the second, for the most part, is no.



By implication Mandelson is doing Browns dirty work by blatantly inferring that the banks are choosing to hoard cash and profiteer rather than make life easier for their borrowers. The truth is much more difficult.

For one, the link between official interest rates and bank lending is not nearly as solid as once it was, particularly since the banks changed their business models to rely more and more on wholesale funding. That risky and ultimately disastrous strategy, it should be remembered, is one that was effectively rubber-stamped by the government and regulators through their light-touch regulatory regime.

As the Council of Mortgage Lenders not unreasonably pointed out yesterday, interbank lending rates (as measured by the benchmark three month Libor) still remain some 1.2% higher than the official bank rate, which reduces the scope for aggressive interest rate cutting. There is no cheap money for the banks yet, so how can there be cheap money for borrowers?

Worse still, the Libor rate has already to a large extent factored in forthcoming rate cuts, which means it is unlikely to fall in line with cuts in the official Bank of England rate.

And not only have wholesale funding costs gone up, but so has the cost of retail-deposit taking, which has suddenly (and thankfully) become a key part of the UK banking model once again. Hence the fact that many savings accounts are still paying relatively reasonable rates of interest.

More broadly, however, banks are being more conservative in their lending strategies, which is not unreasonable given the grim economic outlook. In that context it would be imprudent of them to slash lending rates and criteria aggressively, however much borrowers and the government might like it.

Of course, the bigger question is why banks were allowed to lend so indiscriminately for so long before it all dried up so devastatingly seemingly overnight. Again that suggests fundamental failures of governance and regulation stretching back over a long period.

And finally, and crucially, to allow banks to lower rates and start lending aggressively again is almost directly at odds with the governments stated aim of shoring up the banks capital positions, which as we now know had reached perilously thin levels by September. Indeed as bank results showed earlier in the week, there is still a long way to go before the sector can be considered sufficiently solvent and robust.

But it is to say that matters are a lot more complex than Mandelson suggests and that many of dilemmas the banks now face are a result of the governments own regulatory failings.

Winding up the public to expect cuts in lending rates and deflecting blame for the financial crisis comes across as cheap political points scoring and surely helps no one in the long run.

Perhaps, they are suggesting lending at lower rates for lower risk adventures, lower rates to smaller companies with realistic possibilities and denying 125% mortgages in future. Many of the 75-100% mortgages are now in negative equity. I am sure Brown and co. are fully aware of the complexities. Whether the size of the complexities are known is a different matter.

Re the above article.
The only bit I disagree with is.....The problem, of course, is that matters are far more complex than he (Mandelson) or Gordon Brown are prepared to acknowledge.

My feeling is that it is not the complexity of the matter they have trouble acknowledging its the actual understanding of it.
Looking at the closing market price the city doesn't think its that good a move either.
If this don't work it will be difficult to take the second option of tax cuts to move or save the economy without unwinding this last bank rate.