|
The Brexit committee have said the 'information' the government provided was in paper form, in a folder of 850 pages. I mean honestly, could the contempt be any more transparent? This is just pointlessly making it harder for the information to be read, copied and searched until the comittee can digitise it again. Time-wasting pricks.
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 13:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 06:27 |
|
|
Jacob Rees-Mogg does not view 'paperless books' or 'virtual documents' or 'the wind up musician' as legitimate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 13:20
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:What part are you having trouble with? Guavanaut posted:Theoretically: Person A needs a house, Person B has a house, Bank C lends Person A the money to give to Person B. Person C pays Bank C back over a period of time. Essentially this, but in more detail Why is it a problem if mortgages suddenly go up? If you have a mortgage and are paying it off (and have some sort of lock on it) can the bank simply go "no you owe us a house now"? And if they do choose that won't the bank lose out because they now have a useless hunk of brick instead of something that they could be generating income from? Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 13:31 on Nov 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 13:24
|
|
|
Isn't there also a danger that with Brexit, the Pound collapses badly enough that foreign investors think there's even more reason to buy up property? I mean, it does kind of rely on the UK economy not going completely to poo poo, but it could happen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
jabby posted:The Brexit committee have said the 'information' the government provided was in paper form, in a folder of 850 pages. The select committee got one copy in hard form to minimise leaks. No copies, no nothing, and that was a concession by the committee. Whittingdale just on the Daily Pols claiming this is a 'political game' and he managed that with a straight face.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 13:32
|
|
|
kingturnip posted:Isn't there also a danger that with Brexit, the Pound collapses badly enough that foreign investors think there's even more reason to buy up property? ‘Economy collapses, foreign (but mostly Russian) investors buy everything up, Britain enters horrific ancap dystopia, democracy is a long-forgotten dream’ is literally the main goal of Davis and his cronies. The main disagreement between them is over who should end up at the top of the heap once the dust settles. Look up the Legatum Institute, and the Brexiteers’ (other) Russian ties.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 13:32
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:On that note, it mentions that the bloke that wrote Liberal Defence has criticised Nick Cohens What's Left book, anyone read that? Intellectual he ain't. His attacks on the anti-war movement during the build up towards the Iraq War stem from him thinking that the only conceivable reason why you'd be against it is because you're a massive fan of Saddam.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 13:33
|
|
|
the main reason Id be down on buying a house right now is that potentially being trapped in this shithole after the economy completely collapses and public services start to break down is not ideal
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Essentially this, but in more detail When you get a mortgage, the bank, functionally buys your house. They front the cash to the seller and you pay it off. Now it's under contract so as long as you pay your mortgage they can't take it off you, but they, basically, own it, and they paid the price it was at when you bought it. If your house gains value while you're paying it off, then that's good for you (in a vacuum) because your house is now worth more than you (ignoring interest) paid for it. Of course you then have the problem that you can't really sell it, because houses are so expensive that you mostly just swap houses for other houses and change. You could sell it and go back to renting but people tend not to do that. If your house loses value then that's where the trouble starts. Cos the bank still wants the value they paid for it, back off you. Which is sort of fair enough, they paid for it and you agreed to pay that money to them, but what it basically means is you can't move until you pay it back. Cos normally what you could do is sell the house while it's still under mortgage and then pay off the rest of the mortgage with that money, but if the house isn't worth as much as the mortgage any more, well, now you owe the bank an absurd amount of money and don't have anything to sell remotely commensurate to that value. Also chances are if house prices have crashed the economy is in the shitter too, so you are stuck owing this big chunk of money while your job is in danger and everyone's wages might have tanked too. Basically mortgages work until they don't. And the banks keep giving people mortgages based on this insane inflation of house prices. And the issue is that nobody will actually be able to pay off a mortgage if the economy goes bang, so all this money isn't really there. People aren't earning it, it isn't tied to productivity, it's all an artifact of swapping houses between people for increasing numbers that have no relation to the actual usable, producing food and goods part of the economy. The banks will try to put you on the hook if your mortgage goes into negative equity (what it's called when the house drops below the value of the mortgage) but practically, this only works when a few people do it and yes the banks practically have to eat the loss if you don't have the cash. It's mostly a threat to keep people paying mortgages. If everyone does it the banks are hosed because you can't squeeze out money that isn't there. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 13:42 on Nov 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Essentially this, but in more detail If you're on a fixed rate mortgage then interest rate rises won't touch you until the fixed period ends. However if you're on a variable rate, interest rate rises will directly impact your monthly payments. If you go into mortgage arrears, the bank will want you to clear them and will usually work with you to make this happen, but if you can't (or don't) then they'll start possession action. You're right that this is a "loss" for the bank in that it's likely less than they would get if you'd continued to make payments, but from the bank's perspective it's cutting off their exposure to a known risk.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 13:41
|
|
|
So if you have a very secure job at somewhere (conglomco and you have all the dirt on your bosses) and you bought a house but the house drops in price. Would you still be able to live in it if you kept paying for it, I mean technically you might be "losing" money but it is still better than renting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 13:44
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Essentially this, but in more detail Mortgages are based on the current interest rate set by the Bank of England, and most mortgages offered now will average around 3% interest. However banks will offer to let people fix that rate (often for a fee) that protects them from interest rate changes. That means if BoE raise rates tomorrow anyone paying a mortgage is protected until the end of their current fixed period. Typically this period will be between 2 and 5 years. Let's say someone buys a house valued at £100k at the time of purchase. They can put down £10k as a deposit, and make an agreement with a bank for a £90k mortgage over 20 years. They also agree a fixed period where the interest rate is 2% for the first two years of the mortgage. So for the next two years they pay ~£450 per month. However during those two years, a worst-case Brexit happens. Britain is hit with sudden inflation and interest rate rises, while house prices plummet. Now the best deal the bank will offer is a 5% interest rate, bumping repayments up to nearly £600 per month. This is far more than our homeowner budgeted for, and they may be struggling to pay for everything else too due to the inflation or increased unemployment. What's worse is that our homeowner still owes whatever balance is left on the original debt, but his house is suddenly worth £80k rather than £100k. That means selling it won't even clear all of the debt. Now if the mortgage is not paid for a given period, the bank does have the right to take ownership of the house. The owner finds themself homeless with no equity or income, and the bank itself has probably lost out too as it won't have made enough on interest payments to cover the cash lost from the fall in the property value. Multiply this by a million homeowners and suddenly you have multiple major issues where everyone is worse off (except probably bank executives & MPs).
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 13:45
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:So if you have a very secure job at somewhere (conglomco and you have all the dirt on your bosses) and you bought a house but the house drops in price. Would you still be able to live in it if you kept paying for it, I mean technically you might be "losing" money but it is still better than renting. Yeah, course. You still have a roof over your head and the contract's still valid, but essentially you'd then be working for decades to pay the bank half a million quid and be left with something worth 100k at the end of it. And this is assuming that you have that security which a lot of people don't. You have to keep up those payments which are unlikely to be in line with the suddenly collapsed on its arse economy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 13:46
|
|
|
Party Boat posted:If you're on a fixed rate mortgage then interest rate rises won't touch you until the fixed period ends. However if you're on a variable rate, interest rate rises will directly impact your monthly payments. If you go into mortgage arrears, the bank will want you to clear them and will usually work with you to make this happen, but if you can't (or don't) then they'll start possession action. You're right that this is a "loss" for the bank in that it's likely less than they would get if you'd continued to make payments, but from the bank's perspective it's cutting off their exposure to a known risk. One quick addition to this - taking possession of a house is normally OK for a bank. They'd rather you made the payments, but they don't take too big a hit for repossessing a house since with the housing shortage in the UK it's usually easy to sell, and the house is normally worth more than the loan. What becomes a problem is what happened in Detroit - if enough people default, then you start to see whole areas with a lot of empty (boarded up, poorly maintained) houses, which lowers the prices and means that the banks can't make their money back. Plus it pushes a lot of people into negative equity and makes the area lovely to live in, which leads to them abandoning their houses and accelerates the problem. That's (at least part of) how bursting a housing bubble can crash banks, even if they theoretically have property worth more than the loans they made on it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 13:50
|
|
|
xtothez posted:Now if the mortgage is not paid for a given period, the bank does have the right to take ownership of the house. The owner finds themself homeless with no equity or income, and the bank itself has probably lost out too as it won't have made enough on interest payments to cover the cash lost from the fall in the property value. Multiply this by a million homeowners and suddenly you have multiple major issues where everyone is worse off (except probably bank executives & MPs). My understanding is that, generally, when there's a big hit to the economy and you're looking at hundreds of thousands of home-owners in the shitter, banks tend to be fairly pragmatic. After all, there's not much point them seizing hundreds of thousands of homes if there's no-one to sell them to. So, in that sort of situation, you'd expect banks to renegotiate mortgage terms so that they're at least continuing to get some money from the worthless homes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 13:50
|
|
|
Keir Starmer is ripping into David Davis for releasing the grand sum of gently caress-all and David Davis is returning fire by... not being there and leaving Robin Walker to answer for him. So far the response is "uhhhhhhhhh maybe the tiny amount of information we provided is fine?? D'ya think?????" And Bercow suggested that he was not against holding Davis in contempt of parliament.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 13:50
|
|
|
xtothez posted:(except probably bank executives & MPs). And, short of full "let us take the fight to them" how do we prevent the above from happening?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 13:54
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Keir Starmer is ripping into David Davis for releasing the grand sum of gently caress-all and David Davis is returning fire by... not being there and leaving Robin Walker to answer for him. Robin Walker's just being a smug poo poo. I'm waiting for someone to point out all the times Ministers claimed to have the assessments they're now insisting they never had. Also Reese-Mogg slamming them over parliamentary privilege is amusing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 13:57
|
|
|
kingturnip posted:My understanding is that, generally, when there's a big hit to the economy and you're looking at hundreds of thousands of home-owners in the shitter, banks tend to be fairly pragmatic. After all, there's not much point them seizing hundreds of thousands of homes if there's no-one to sell them to. Often they will accommodate changes in circumstance in the short-mid term. They may allow swaps to interest-only payments or payment holidays for a while, and offers like this will usually impact an owners credit rating hard. Those won't be options for anyone nearing retirement age or struggling to find work, and eventually something has to give. One of the side-effects from the crisis a decade ago is that banks are supposed to keep some hard cash on standby as a 'buffer' against situations like this. That may well protect the banks themselves (and the public from future bailouts), but it doesn't help much with people losing homes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 13:57
|
|
|
Peter Bone (and I assume Mrs Bone) are gunning for Davis now. If even the Brexit true believers are riled you know things can't be going well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 13:59
|
|
|
Wolfsbane posted:What becomes a problem is what happened in Detroit - if enough people default, then you start to see whole areas with a lot of empty (boarded up, poorly maintained) houses, which lowers the prices and means that the banks can't make their money back. Plus it pushes a lot of people into negative equity and makes the area lovely to live in, which leads to them abandoning their houses and accelerates the problem. in the UK, mortgages are full-recourse and the bank can pursue you for whatever the balance is after the house is sold
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 14:00
|
|
|
So I am sitting through some goddamn management fad bullshit and guess who their official examples of great businesses are? It's loving Capita and ATOS I'm trapped in a Dilbert comic, send help Obliterati fucked around with this message at 14:12 on Nov 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 14:08
|
|
|
Noted homophobe and former LibDem quote:In discarding Christianity, we kick away the foundations of liberalism and democracy and so we cannot then be surprised when what we call liberalism stops being liberal. The #LibDemFightBack is here!
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 14:15
|
|
|
Taking out a mortgage seems risky now, and holding on to capital savings seems risky now, so the best thing to do is spend every penny you earn satisfying your vices, and pray that death comes quickly as the country disappears down the shitter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 14:17
|
|
|
coffeetable posted:so this is a particular problem in the US because in the US most mortgages are non-recourse: if you stop paying, the bank can only seize the house Is that why in the US, when a family hits negative equity, they just up and leave and disappear across state lines? Leaving their house to rot and bring down the value of all the other houses on their street? (It's been a while but I remember seeing this explanation of the housing crash)
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 14:17
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:When you get a mortgage, the bank, functionally buys your house. They front the cash to the seller and you pay it off. Now it's under contract so as long as you pay your mortgage they can't take it off you, but they, basically, own it, and they paid the price it was at when you bought it. This isn't how mortgages work. A mortgage is a legal charge on the property. You, the individual, are the property owner; what the bank owns is a right to enforce their charge in the event of you not meeting conditions (i.e. not paying them any more). The charge itself is in the property, not the owner - which is why most lenders require you to have life insurance which covers the cost of the mortgage loan, because otherwise they'd have to try and enforce the charge against your heirs and that all gets very messy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 14:19
|
|
|
Mu. posted:Taking out a mortgage seems risky now, and holding on to capital savings seems risky now, so the best thing to do is spend every penny you earn satisfying your vices, and pray that death comes quickly as the country disappears down the shitter. Or you just invest your money abroad so you become rich when the pound devalues. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 14:19
|
|
|
coffeetable posted:so this is a particular problem in the US because in the US most mortgages are non-recourse: if you stop paying, the bank can only seize the house Seriously? Well, gently caress. MiddleOne posted:Or you just invest your money abroad so you become rich when the pound devalues. Or get paid in Krone  
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 14:26
|
|
|
coffeetable posted:so this is a particular problem in the US because in the US most mortgages are non-recourse: if you stop paying, the bank can only seize the house Yeah which makes the higher rates stupid as hell Banks like mortgages because they are secured AND they can recover everything
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 14:26
|
|
|
Wolfsbane posted:Seriously? Well, gently caress. One of the major reasons why everything went tits up in 2007. People in the US can just declare themselves personally bankrupt and the bank is stuck with the house and you're free to move on (liquidating everything you own, but who's counting?). For some reason housing prices went to poo poo when a billion of them were suddenly up for sale which caused interest rates to rise which caused more lenders to default on their loans and the rest is history.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
Corrode posted:This isn't how mortgages work. A mortgage is a legal charge on the property. You, the individual, are the property owner; what the bank owns is a right to enforce their charge in the event of you not meeting conditions (i.e. not paying them any more). The charge itself is in the property, not the owner - which is why most lenders require you to have life insurance which covers the cost of the mortgage loan, because otherwise they'd have to try and enforce the charge against your heirs and that all gets very messy. Uh you can always tell those lenders that need life insurance (ppi) to get hosed and buy it yourself if you really need it
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
Wolfsbane posted:Or get paid in Krone Well our economy might be about to go down the shitter in the incoming year so don't get too eager on that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Well our economy might be about to go down the shitter in the incoming year so don't get too eager on that. Oh? What's up?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
Party Boat posted:Peter Bone (and I assume Mrs Bone) are gunning for Davis now. If even the Brexit true believers are riled you know things can't be going well. Rees-Mogg lays out their logic in this Guardian article. Basically, the government being allowed to ignore parliament leaves backbenchers powerless. Apart from that obvious issue, I’d add that this also helps Rees-Mogg’s leadership ambitions - a Conservative leadership contest consists of the membership choosing between two candidates picked by the MPs, so making yourself a champion of the backbenchers (and driving a wedge between them and your other rivals for the hardline candidacy) is smart politics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
Junior G-man posted:
How can I tell who doesn't deserve my kindness unless I judge them first to, in fact, not deserve it? Although whilst we are on the topic of giving stuff to people who don't deserve it I definitely qualify for some stuff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Rees-Mogg lays out their logic in this Guardian article. Basically, the government being allowed to ignore parliament leaves backbenchers powerless. Apart from that obvious issue, I’d add that this also helps Rees-Mogg’s leadership ambitions - a Conservative leadership contest consists of the membership choosing between two candidates picked by the MPs, so making yourself a champion of the backbenchers (and driving a wedge between them and your other rivals for the hardline candidacy) is smart politics. Rees mogg has no intention of leading as that would require a measure of accountability and he can't have that
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Thank you, will make sure to see if I can find them. I have a copy of What's Left somewhere! I bought it a decade ago when I was voraciously reading books from the politics section of Waterstones, some of what I got was good (Hobsbawm's trilogy on the long 19th century) and some of it was Nick Cohen's What's Left. Which I bought because I dunno, I recognised his name from The Observer so I just assumed he wasn't terrible. On a similar line of logic I also bought a book by Simon Jenkins. I had bad judgement. The main thesis of What's Left as I remember it was "Iraqi expats in London were really pro war & anti Saddam and therefore it is a terrible reflection upon 'the left' to oppose it, oh for the good old days when the left stood up to tyrants." We should create a thread in CSPAM and do a readalong of that horrible book.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Yeah, course. You still have a roof over your head and the contract's still valid, but essentially you'd then be working for decades to pay the bank half a million quid and be left with something worth 100k at the end of it. And this is assuming that you have that security which a lot of people don't. You have to keep up those payments which are unlikely to be in line with the suddenly collapsed on its arse economy. Arguably still better than working for decades to pay some landlord shithead half a million quid and own gently caress all at the end of it. Although if rental prices collapse but you're still paying a megabucks mortgage then you'll look pretty silly I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Oh? What's up? Your dumbass Lexit vote leading to another lost decade or worse as companies start pulling out investment
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 06:27 |
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:Your dumbass Lexit vote leading to another lost decade or worse as companies start pulling out investment Wow, how much British investment is there in Sweden?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 14:43
|
|