Whats the latest - Public money to bail out the banks???????
nicensleazy
Posts: 2,310
Well..............there is no latest. The good old British public have been sold a pink elephant. The new government have not told us how our money is going to be repaid. But I guess, its not going to be repaid. All this money has gone into a very deep Capitolistic black hole. In truth, we don't have a hope in hell retrieving this money. So, in retrospect I would say this public bail out was for the government not to loose face, or perhaps they just found the whole thing a trifle embarrassing.....what would other countires think of Great Britain getting into a mess. Well I guess, they really couldn't give a sh@t because they are too busy sorting out their own problems. But don't worry folks because old George Osborne has a plan..........well we will just ask the ' great british public' to pay more!!!! Great idea George, we just keep on paying. Whilst the City fat cats just get fatter and fatter with their bonus culture payments. So, the government have now come up with this great idea of sellling of former and government/public buildings in Whitehall and the like to rich Saudi investors. They should of just let these banks fall flat on their faces, simple is that! OK, protect the people that need protecting, but thats it. However, looking at this whole balls up, why did the government allow it in the firsrt place....... incompetence...didn't have a real grip of what was going on.....or was it the head in the sand job?
0
Comments
-
Don't you realise that you're "Just a peasant in the big shitty"Expertly coached by http://www.vitessecyclecoaching.co.uk/
http://vineristi.wordpress.com - the blog for Viner owners and lovers!0 -
The fact is though they were too big to fail, they had to be propped up. What would have happened if a couple of them went down taking down the savings and banking facilties of millions of people and businesses? Riots probably.0
-
0
-
Banking represents too much of the balance of trade, it used to represent a small section, but it has grown and grown where it is now propping large parts of the economy up, if the banking goes the standard of living in the UK plummets very rapidly. Personally I am expecting 1970s style inflation very soon.0
-
verylonglegs wrote:The fact is though they were too big to fail, they had to be propped up. What would have happened if a couple of them went down taking down the savings and banking facilties of millions of people and businesses? Riots probably.
They weren't too big to fail - it's more that the government especially Gordon who was the guru chancellor couldn't have handled the embarrassment of them failing on his watch.
They should have been let die - protecting the depositors etc who needed protecting and launched new banks for a fraction of the cost to the tax payer.
One of the worlds leading economists Paul Krugman said as much at the time .... but no one was listening.
It's one of the many economic travesties of the last government - much like spend more than you earn in the boom times was another masterstroke.
I'll stop now before I get carried away. :evil:My cycling blog: http://girodilento.com/0 -
Just started working in the financial sector (*woo*). Explains my lack of cycling training at the moment.
Banks are intertwined enough that if one major bank goes, they all go. Then it's a real sh!tstorm.
The question I have to those who hate the banks so much:
where are their savings right now?
If you don't like banks, don't use them....0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:The question I have to those who hate the banks so much:
where are their savings right now?
If you don't like banks, don't use them....
C'mon Rick, that's just a ridiculously silly comment, you can do better than that.
What are people supposed to do with their money? How many employers will pay you if you don't have a bank account?0 -
ScottieP wrote:verylonglegs wrote:The fact is though they were too big to fail, they had to be propped up. What would have happened if a couple of them went down taking down the savings and banking facilties of millions of people and businesses? Riots probably.
They weren't too big to fail - it's more that the government especially Gordon who was the guru chancellor couldn't have handled the embarrassment of them failing on his watch.
They should have been let die - protecting the depositors etc who needed protecting and launched new banks for a fraction of the cost to the tax payer.
One of the worlds leading economists Paul Krugman said as much at the time .... but no one was listening.
It's one of the many economic travesties of the last government - much like spend more than you earn in the boom times was another masterstroke.
I'll stop now before I get carried away. :evil:
That's assuming the public at large would have understood such a scheme and acted rationally. They wouldn't have as was proved with Northern Rock, remember the queues of people desperate to get their money? It's scenes like that again which the government wanted to avoid hence the bailout.0 -
That's my point...johnfinch wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:The question I have to those who hate the banks so much:
where are their savings right now?
If you don't like banks, don't use them....
C'mon Rick, that's just a ridiculously silly comment, you can do tbetter than that.
What are people supposed to do with their money? How many employers will pay you if you don't have a bank account?
Like it or not, everyone has an interest in big banks not collapsing.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:
That's my point...johnfinch wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:The question I have to those who hate the banks so much:
where are their savings right now?
If you don't like banks, don't use them....
C'mon Rick, that's just a ridiculously silly comment, you can do tbetter than that.
What are people supposed to do with their money? How many employers will pay you if you don't have a bank account?
Like it or not, everyone has an interest in big banks not collapsing.
Ah right, sorry I see what you mean now. I thought you were just talking bollocks. :oops:0 -
-
verylonglegs wrote:That's assuming the public at large would have understood such a scheme and acted rationally. They wouldn't have as was proved with Northern Rock, remember the queues of people desperate to get their money? It's scenes like that again which the government wanted to avoid hence the bailout.
I'm not sure I agree - it could have been done intelligently by pro-actively managing and communicating it - but I take your point.
We'll never know as the government weren't up for the other approach - so it's a hypothetical as a result.My cycling blog: http://girodilento.com/0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:
Fair enough. There is precedent for it!johnfinch wrote:
Ah right, sorry I see what you mean now. I thought you were just talking bollocks. :oops:
Well done on finding a job by the way. My search is just at the beginning.0 -
-
ScottieP wrote:verylonglegs wrote:The fact is though they were too big to fail, they had to be propped up. What would have happened if a couple of them went down taking down the savings and banking facilties of millions of people and businesses? Riots probably.
They weren't too big to fail - it's more that the government especially Gordon who was the guru chancellor couldn't have handled the embarrassment of them failing on his watch.
They should have been let die - protecting the depositors etc who needed protecting and launched new banks for a fraction of the cost to the tax payer.
One of the worlds leading economists Paul Krugman said as much at the time .... but no one was listening.
It's one of the many economic travesties of the last government - much like spend more than you earn in the boom times was another masterstroke.
I'll stop now before I get carried away. :evil:
So one leading economist said it, meanwhile most of the worlds leading economists recomended we bail out the banks...maybe he was right, maybe he just wanted to get his name in the papers. If the banks had failed I doubt the man in the street would have been looked after well...
If you don't like the banks, use a building society?You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
I would say that helping British banks with British money is a whole lot better for Britian
than sending British money to some impoverished country, only to have it misused or basically stolen by corrupt politicians. Same for any country.0 -
dennisn wrote:I would say that helping British banks with British money is a whole lot better for Britian
than sending British money to some impoverished country, only to have it misused or basically stolen by corrupt politicians. Same for any country.
Aid is often used as a foreign policy tool - buy influence in that country.
Which is why, for example, we give aid to countries with nuclear weapons and space programmes.0 -
Think you need to look at the last Government.The money was loaned ( ie there was a contract with terms etc). Last Government negotiated contract, so its not down to this administration those termsnicensleazy wrote:Well..............there is no latest. The good old British public have been sold a pink elephant. The new government have not told us how our money is going to be repaid.
Strange how you are blaming George Osborne for the decisions of the previous Labour government.
But I guess, its not going to be repaid. All this money has gone into a very deep Capitolistic black hole. In truth, we don't have a hope in hell retrieving this money. So, in retrospect I would say this public bail out was for the government not to loose face, or perhaps they just found the whole thing a trifle embarrassing.....what would other countires think of Great Britain getting into a mess. Well I guess, they really couldn't give a sh@t because they are too busy sorting out their own problems. But don't worry folks because old George Osborne has a plan..........well we will just ask the ' great british public' to pay more!!!! Great idea George, we just keep on paying. Whilst the City fat cats just get fatter and fatter with their bonus culture payments. So, the government have now come up with this great idea of sellling of former and government/public buildings in Whitehall and the like to rich Saudi investors. They should have just let these banks fall flat on their faces, simple is that! OK, protect the people that need protecting, but thats it. However, looking at this whole balls up, why did the government allow it in the firsrt place....... incompetence...didn't have a real grip of what was going on.....or was it the head in the sand job?
Can't bear to blame those responsible eh?Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_6660 -
No...but who's pulling the strings now boyo!0
-
nicensleazy wrote:No...but who's pulling the strings now boyo!
The new Government may be in power, but the loans you are referring to are contracts entered into by a previous government.
They cannot breach the contract. The blame for the loans (if there is any) and the repayment or otherwise terms can only lie with the previous government as they entered into the contract.
Clearly you are not bothered about facts getting in the way of your rantWant to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_6660 -
spen666 wrote:nicensleazy wrote:No...but who's pulling the strings now boyo!
The new Government may be in power, but the loans you are referring to are contracts entered into by a previous government.
They cannot breach the contract. The blame for the loans (if there is any) and the repayment or otherwise terms can only lie with the previous government as they entered into the contract.
Clearly you are not bothered about facts getting in the way of your rant
Rant...............I'm just expressing what people think in this country!!
Yes, I take your point..............old Golden Brown and the former shambles have a lot to answer for. However, that was yesterday and now we must be concerned for today. Why haven't the new mob told us about the future of repayments etc. I guess the terms and cons on the loan. Ah........howver it doesn't take long before the Conservatives show their true colours, they want to flog off the last part of the family silver, Royal Mail.0 -
As opposed to the last lot who colluded in and took part in an invasion of a country on spurious evidence, resulting in the deaths of large numbers of people and the waste of money that invasion and occupation entailed. Then to cap it all put a brigade in charge of garrisoning the second largest city in the country when Baghdad had several US divisions to run it.
Part of the tribalist politics which make the UK the backward looking nation that is.0 -
Don't forget allowing the bonus culture of the banks continuing, on the basis that we would lose so many talented bankers! So what, let them quit, live off their wealth or move abroad and employ a load of unemployed or equally talented people from the pot of currently employed people. Banking is basically sales, and there are a lot of talented salespeople around at the moment. they could move into banking, leaving a lot of jobs available for unemployed people to be forced (sorry, have it made worthwhile) to take up.0
-
guilliano wrote:So what, let them quit, live off their wealth or move abroad and employ a load of unemployed or equally talented people from the pot of currently employed people.
They tend to take their customers with them as well. A lot of it is about your network and contacts. That's got a lot of value. The City is different to many industries in that your competition is literally over the road or next doorFckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
I know, I used to work in the city (albeit in retail). I used to get customers asking me not to deal with certain other companies as they didn't want their rivals getting the same service as my old employers offered. They compete in everything! But a lot of them are also arrogant arses who believe that because they have a few hundred thousand in the bank the world owes them something the rest of us aren't entitled to.....
Personally I only offer respect to those that earn it, not own it0 -
0
