Eric Cantona: Kill the banks
Crapaud
Posts: 2,483
I heard it on the news this morning and found the vid on You Tube: Eric Cantona calls for a run on the banks.
While I've got little (read, no) sympathy for the banks, I'm in 2 minds whether this is a good idea or not. On the one hand I quite like the idea of putting the wind right up the money grabbing barstewards and the politcians. The Govmt has done f-all to curtail bonuses and tax evasion / avoidence despite their pre election promises. ISTM that this is a good way of sending them a very strong message: clean up your act, the lot of you ... or else!.
On the other hand, it'd have to be very finely balanced; take too much out of the banks and you bring them down and, probably, the whole country too.
Thoughts?
While I've got little (read, no) sympathy for the banks, I'm in 2 minds whether this is a good idea or not. On the one hand I quite like the idea of putting the wind right up the money grabbing barstewards and the politcians. The Govmt has done f-all to curtail bonuses and tax evasion / avoidence despite their pre election promises. ISTM that this is a good way of sending them a very strong message: clean up your act, the lot of you ... or else!.
On the other hand, it'd have to be very finely balanced; take too much out of the banks and you bring them down and, probably, the whole country too.
Thoughts?
A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject - Churchill
0
Comments
-
A run on the French banks sounds to be ideal then since it would teach the bankers a lesson and ruin France
0 -
Bobbinogs wrote:A run on the French banks sounds to be ideal then since it would teach the bankers a lesson and ruin France
Hmmmm ...... Cantona's call appeared to touch a popular chord and generated an instant response. Nearly 40,000 people have clicked on the YouTube clip, and a French-based movement – StopBanque – has taken up the campaign for a massive coordinated withdrawal of money from banks on 7 December. It is claimed that more than 14,000 people are already committed to removing deposits. The movement is also gaining increasing attention in Britain. ...A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject - Churchill0 -
I must say initially I work for a Bank (I'm sure we can all get past the point that not everyone working for a Bank/whatever it trendy in the news at that time, is not evil.).
What is this really going to achieve? A mass withdrawal will indeed send a message that people are not happy however, cashpoints will quickly run out meaning people needing cash can't access it. This will then lead to panic (like the fuel crisis) and have people queuing at branches etc who won't be able to cope.
We (as in the general public) lose out overall. Surely a better idea would be a none withdrawal day as this still gets the message across but doesn't needlessly backfire on the general public.0 -
Crapaud wrote:I heard it on the news this morning and found the vid on You Tube: Eric Cantona calls for a run on the banks.
While I've got little (read, no) sympathy for the banks, I'm in 2 minds whether this is a good idea or not. On the one hand I quite like the idea of putting the wind right up the money grabbing barstewards and the politcians. The Govmt has done f-all to curtail bonuses and tax evasion / avoidence despite their pre election promises. ISTM that this is a good way of sending them a very strong message: clean up your act, the lot of you ... or else!.
On the other hand, it'd have to be very finely balanced; take too much out of the banks and you bring them down and, probably, the whole country too.
Thoughts?
Yes, because 6 months is plenty of time to draft up meaningful legislation and get it past through parliament whilst ensuring it stands up to the rigours of people looking for loopholes! The worst thing we can have is ill thought out legislation reacting to public opinion, we've had over a decade of that sort of thing. Plus you can't just overrule an individuals contract that entitles them to a bonus. Fine, the banks with Government stakes can make sure that bonuses for new staff are sustainable and reflect good quality growth but those contracts already in place cannot be undone without a long battle through the courts. Is it right? Of course not but any changes have to be well thought out before being implemented.0 -
Pross, tax evasion / avoidance have been known about for a long time. It was one of their pledges along with 'sorting' benefits. They had plenty of time to plan for both. They've done squat with tax, but were quick off the mark on cutting benefits. Likewise, they were quick to put the boot into the last goverment when it came to the banks. At least they did something, even if one disagreed with it, with next to no notice. TL;DR They've had far longer than 6 months.
There aren't even rumours of them tacking either. I can understand why people would be angry and a co-ordinated run on the banks could take-off.
Just the idea of this must have the politicos and banks filling their trousers.A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject - Churchill0 -
Crapaud wrote:They've done squat with tax, but were quick off the mark on cutting benefits.
Wait for the next budget. I predict huge changes on taxation. Too slow for your expectations but it is coming............None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
The tax system is already in a complete mess. Anything that is done has to be well thought out and thorough. Better to take longer and have a system that has its desired effects than yet another round of Inland Revenue letters to millions who have over / under paid. They haven't been quick off the mark cutting benefits, they have only got to the stage in the last few weeks where they have put forward a few ideas some of which (universal payments) have met with approval all round. The actual changes don't start for years and will have to get through parliament first. The problem with changes to tax is that the people affected are more likely to be prepared to pay a clever lawyer to find a way around any changes or to get a ruling that they are unfair so it arguably needs even more thought put into it than the benefits side of things (not saying that is right or fair).0
-
Monsieur Cantona could suggest blowing up the Moon and I'd back him... The man is a legend!
Ben
Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/0 -
Tune in next week when David Beckham will be telling us how to turn the middle east into a tolerant, peaceful area....0
-
So risk fcking up the whole economy to try and teach the bankers a lesson....
a) If the economy's even more screwed, the apparent small growth which has been reported will be lost, and we'll probably go back into recession
b) The bankers won't learn their lesson
On the whole, by all means let some other country do it, preferably not one in the EU or that is a key trading partner. But ffs, don't do it here.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
Ultimately, wrt to banker comp, you're at the mercy of the US. And they're not going to introduce legislation to limit it etc, so it would be commercial suicide for the UK or anywhere else to do it.
The Telegraph reported boy George is already concerned about the exodus of recent months of big earners from the UK.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
This bit about bonuses has always confused me, as when I worked for a high street bank - in the high street, each year every one was given targets re sales, cutting waste/costs etc. Sometimes changed after 6 months if the staff were doing too well.
If you exceeded your targets then you received a bonus - no bonuses for turning up to work.
AS bonuses were paid when banks were making reduced profits or losses how on earth did any one earn a bonus on top of standard pay. If it was in their contract then where was the incentive to exceed targets?0 -
plowmar wrote:
AS bonuses were paid when banks were making reduced profits or losses how on earth did any one earn a bonus on top of standard pay. If it was in their contract then where was the incentive to exceed targets?
Typically they're paid on individual performance. So while some people might get a retention bonus, you could see certain area's performing well even if the organisation is doing poorly. A lot of investment banks were doing very well in certain areas but poorly in others.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
the guy is a genius!0
-
Causing a run on a bank as a protest is a bit like a mob torching a building. It's a destructive act that doesn't solve the underlying problem.0
-
It's dafter than that - its like a mob torching a building while they are still in it - and the fire exits have been sealed shut from the outside by multi-millionaire, ex-footballing, part-time actors.
You can be damn sure Eric has moved his money from the bank long before the fractional reserve runs dry.'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'0 -
I'm not convinced average wage earners pulling money out of banks would do much...
You've still got a mortgage, and most people don't have large quantities of cash lying around in banks. Most people invest them in an ISA, or investment plan/managed fund/pension etc.
If you really wanted to f*ck the economy up, everyone could withdraw their entire pension in cash, that'd downsize some of the biggest investment vehicles.
Anyway who wants to keep multiple thousands of £'s at home. Even if a bank goes bust personal deposits are guaranteed up to £50,000 by the government, but if it gets nicked from your house you lose everything..."I hold it true, what'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost;
Than never to have loved at all."
Alfred Tennyson0 -
most people don't have large quantities of cash lying around in banks
Normally banks themselves don't have large quantities of cash lying around either - the business works by lending out notional amounts to multiples of people, on the assumption that all the original depositors aren't going to turn up and take their money back all at the same time, so busting the bank. This is one reason banks are so eager to pursuade people to transfer their cash savings accounts into longer-term locked-in investment schemes.0 -
verylonglegs wrote:Tune in next week when David Beckham will be telling us how to turn the middle east into a tolerant, peaceful area....
Do we have enough nukes for that?Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals! Except the weasel0 -
Le Commentateur wrote:most people don't have large quantities of cash lying around in banks
Normally banks themselves don't have large quantities of cash lying around either - the business works by lending out notional amounts to multiples of people, on the assumption that all the original depositors aren't going to turn up and take their money back all at the same time, so busting the bank. This is one reason banks are so eager to pursuade people to transfer their cash savings accounts into longer-term locked-in investment schemes.
I know, but not convinced it would work.
Most banks have core capital ratio of 7% (depending on definitions of core capital), so 7% of their total balance sheet is held in liquid assets. Retail customers cash account is a small part of this big picture.
You'd need a lot of withdrawals to threaten a banks liquid position, not to mention the existence of interbank lending, or the continued implicit government underwriting of systemically important financial institutions, which would guarantee their liquid positions.
It'd last a week, then there'd be a spate of robberies, with people losing everything.
An easy answer is that you'd run out of printed notes too quickly anyway.
Not sure what this is meant to achieve, "yes we can make you struggle to maintain liquidity".
Why doesn't everyone not buy food for a month to screw over tescos?"I hold it true, what'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost;
Than never to have loved at all."
Alfred Tennyson0 -
The better solution is for no-one to make their loan / credit card / mortgage repayments for a month - that would screw them (just me doing it would probably put Northern Rock and Lloyds TSB out of business!!).0
-
-
Only if you bother paying them the charges - perhaps we should do it over a full year instead
0 -
Pross wrote:Only if you bother paying them the charges - perhaps we should do it over a full year instead
I met a guy who left a credit card company because he found it so unethical (and he's hardly a moral guy). He said they spent most meetings genuinely targetting the vulrenable, people they know have credit card problems, and find those who they are still allowed to give credit. They give them as much credit as possible, and when they fail to pay, they make their cash.
He may have been exaggerating but it doesn't surprise me too much.0 -
Pross wrote:The better solution is for no-one to make their loan / credit card / mortgage repayments for a month - that would screw them (just me doing it would probably put Northern Rock and Lloyds TSB out of business!!).
I'm pretty sure in accountancy, debt is an asset for those holding it.
So you'd be increasing their assets, but with deductions for perceived credit risk (what credit ratings agencies do).
Anyway, again with the fact the government has guaranteed large banks!"I hold it true, what'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost;
Than never to have loved at all."
Alfred Tennyson0 -
Who takes Cantona seriously after his seagulls following trawlers bo11ox? 0
