Nightjar wrote
alan_m wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

Good, isn't it? You expect people to take financial advice from a
failing bank. Or use that bank's predictions to back up yours.

And similarly we are asked to believe the predictions of those who didn't
foresee the 2008 financial crisis.

There is a basic difference between the two. Brexit is a very specific
event that required people to study it and to predict what will happen
afterwards.

So was the question of Britain joining the
eurozone, and they ****ed that up completely.

There was no similar imperative for the same people to investigate whether
there would be a crisis in a particular year, or even in a particular
decade.

Even sillier than you usually manage. The obvious imperative
is to organise your affairs so you wouldn’t be affected when
that happened or at the level of govt, to avoid it happening.

And you're just plain wrong in the question of deregulating
the banks too. ALL of those clowns were in favour of doing
that and ALL were too ****ing stupid to work out what the
downsides of doing that would be. NOT ONE of the Canadian
or Australian retail banks imploded spectacularly or even
needed to be bailed out by govt either. BECAUSE they
weren't actually stupid enough to take any notice of what
those spivs and con men demanded happen with deregulation.

However, there were people who warned it would happen:

http://intheblack.com/articles/2015/...em-from-now-on

NOT ONE of them predicted the complete implosion of
much of the world financial system, even if you ignore
the question of exactly when that would actually happen.