"Tieši otrādi, ir noprotams, ka valsts gatavojas dažādos veidos atbalstīt privātās komercbankas, no tām neprasot solidāru atbildību par vieglprātīgi izsniegtajiem kredītiem. Tas liecina, ka starptautiskais aizdevums neproporcionālā apmērā varētu tikt izmantots tieši to institūciju atbalstam, kuru piekoptā kredītpolitika izraisīja tirgus pārkaršanu..."

>'please stop us lending money'
> aizkustinoši - tiešam

Consider this -- you are a bank manager who wants to stop the credit madness. Your employers are practically your investors. Try to be the first to stop giving out credits yourself and see the investors flock to the "normal" banks who just continue to rake (supposed) money. You would be sacked in 5 minutes any day until the Lehman collapse.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Thanks for replying (I'll do this in English - I'm supposed to be working;):

Understood - but not all banks took part in this frenzy. Those who did, I would argue, should be just as exposed to the consequences of what they did as those who speculators who took credit (Not forgetting my proletarian roots, I hesitate to include families who bought a flat where they would simply try and live). As it is, it looks like the majority will be bailed out -

Which, especially in relation to Latvia, is where it gets confusing (for me -I am a bear, it seems, of little brain). The money from international lenders is primarily going to prop up the lat and to parex (as I understand half of the 1.2 billion from the EU is set aside for the financial sector). The beneficaries of this are:

banks - thus for a while protected from the mass defaults that would most likely take place with a devaluation;

those who took credit - at least as a 'by product' - AK bank, for example has shown its teeth to those clients who haven't even missed a payment;

parex bank creditors (and who else benefits from that is anyone's guess.)

So, I would argue, the obsession with slashing the wages of low-paid public sector workers and pensioners is immoral. They do not benefit directly from this tactic of saving the banks' hides, and should not have to pay the cost. That's really my main point in all of this - the fixation with the corruption and inefficiency of the public sector/Latvian govt (although not without foundation, believe me - I understand) has lead to it being a convenient scapegoat for the current ills.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Well, I am all for letting banks take their part of the fall, as one who (a)has bought a flat where to live, and (b) works in public sector at the moment.

For me, personally, however, it would be quite enough to make me feel secure, if defaulting on my mortgage meant that bank only takes my apartment and has to write off everything else I would owe them.

As it is now, I am stuck with a mortgage that is still manageable, but barely, and the understanding that even if I have to give back to the bank the apartment, I would still owe them for the rest of my life, as they wouldn't be able to quickly sell the apartment for the same price I bought it for.

As I understood, betting only the apartment you buy, rather than half your wage for the rest of your life is the situation in the US mortgage market [although a recent visiting friend from the US denied this, so there are conflicting reports].

If a provision such as this would have been adopted sometime at the start of the credit boom, I believe it would have been quite enough of the detterent for banks to lend more responsibly.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Then you and I are in the same boat (by the way your English is quite astounding - it actually makes me nervous - Please understand that when I switch back to Latvian, it's just out of an obstinate desire to put into practice the little skill I have picked up from the years of falling asleep infront of Latvian grammar tables).

Phoned my mother (cute eh?)to find out about the negative equity situation in the UK (This place I bought in Latvia is the first for me), and she said that the homeless + debt-for-life situation does indeed exist - it's just most people simply file for personal bankruptcy, which is relatively easy in the UK. Maybe this is a potential defence for the likes of us should it (put put) come to that.

Still want to emphasise the moral unfairness of the attack on Public Sector workers - will be meeting M. Hansen on Thursday (he doesn't know yet) and I'll see what he has to say about it - he's recently been sticking the boot in, while wincing I should add.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Yes, personal bankrupcy starts to sound attractive. I heard something about the Latvian govt making it more feasible for people as well -- until now it was supposedly too expensive(!) to declare yourself bankrupt unless you happened to be a Ltd.

Public sector, public sector. Honestly, I am in two minds. Perhaps because I believe I personally could still earn more or at least as much as now in private sector, if push comes to a nastier shove. But really, when I look at the organization I am in, I doubt some long needed changes in personnel would have taken place unless the budget was cut so severely. And I think it is the case in much more than my institution.

Thanks for the compliment on language. I like to practice it when possible -- I feel I don't get enough opportunity in the last years, at least on general subjects.

I do enjoy very much reading your Latvian posts. I must admit though, it is quite interesting to occasionally have to backtrack to English to understand why you were using a particular phrase or order or words. ;)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Rimšēvics jau tālajā 2004 gadā Alfas nometnes bērniem vienkāršiem vārdiem pastāstīja, ka LV ir uz tāda ceļa, ka, ja tā turpinās, divu, trīs gadu laikā būšot vājprātīga pārkaršana.