Honda XRV Forum banner

1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
All

I would realy like to hear what normal:thumbup: people think, from this independent forum that I have visited, posted on, and respect, as the BBC will not publish a Blog my wife has sent on this subject on several occasions.
I am no where near as articulate as her,an English Teacher, but It is a fairly straightforward statment.
Why should we and our children the tax paying public and future tax payers socialise the dept of the banks while for all my life I have never seen a bank socialise the magnificant profits they have made for themselves and the so important shareholders over decades, oh apart from some high profile sport sponsership.
I know this may seem a bit naive but it certinly smacks of unfair, unloyal behaviour on the part of Goverment and the banking community when as soon as they get in trouble by dare I say getting greedier than has been historically the norm, they turn and declair that we have to bail them out or else, or slse what, we refuse, as they would do to us,we revolt?? if only.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,768 Posts
I agree Banks have made profits from interest charges and other activities, so should have enough funds to continue.
If they are unable to do this then why are they in the banking business.
 

·
2 bikes = twice as happy
Joined
·
4,354 Posts
what gets me is that the UK assets/liabilities (often the same thing it seems) of just one bank (BoS I think) are greater than the gross domestic product of the entire country. How can this be?:confused:

so, if all the assets of all the banks in all the world were added up it would surely come to more than the GDP of the world. Again how can this be??? To anyone with any common sense it says the banks are insolvent, probably technically bankrupt and will fail sooner or later. Propping 'em up is only delaying the inevitable.

Oh, and as for financial advisors, economists, or whatever else the financial sector call their experts - how come no-one in the banking sector saw this coming and flogged off the assets while the going was good?

It all bollox!!
 

·
XRV750 RD04
Joined
·
1,549 Posts
Was going to ramble on for a bit there but just deleted it. This video is worth a watch if you haven't seen it before:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9042725109554679712

gives a whole new perspective on the financial crisis for many people (lots of people I've spoken to still think the money they lend is the same money people deposit in their savings account and think you're joking when you explain how fractional reserve banking and futures markets work and some of them even think it's backed by gold or silver still!).

There are less mainstream politicians and economists who criticise this system, but they very rarely seem to get air time in mainstream media outlets, so its not surprising to me that your wife isn't being published (if she's arguing from a similar perspective).

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Xir5j8SjVlI

This guy (ron paul) I find interesting, and having libertarian leanings myself I tend to find many of his other ideas more palatable too. If you do a search for 'ron paul fractional reserve' you'll find more detailed talks and interviews on the matter. Or a quick look at 'fractional reserve banking' on wikipedia will provide links to economists who have alternative viewpoints too.

For me, I'm not completley sure what the solution is, but I do wonder where this money is going to come from initially (I know it'll be collected through taxation eventually but I mean in the immediate short term - it's not as if the government will have it laying around doing nothing and can just hand it over - I suspect it'll actually be borrowed with interest attached from the same institutions who's job it should really be to sort this mess out and that the reason they'd prefer it to be lent by the government is that they know they have the legal right to coercion to collect it that the banks don't have - afterall if you don't pay your tax bill, then legally they have the right to drag you kicking and screaming and throw you in a little cage for 23 hours a day for however long they see fit).

Either that (or probably as well as that) they'll encourage people to save, lower the interest rate to virtually nothing, then at the same time have more money created (under some scummy double think term like 'quantitive easing' perhaps) - which devalues the currency at the same time as paying out less for savings - which it seems to me to amount to little more than theft from savers. From what I can gather this is what they're planning.

The tragedy is that those with very large amounts of money will be better placed to protect it, through tax havens etc. (if they haven't already got it invested in gold that's worth three or four times what they paid for it when they saw this coming years ago). Then when everything bottoms out they'll be selling off that gold at a good profit and buying things up at jumble sale prices and so the cycle continues (or at least that's how it looks to me - though admittedly I'm no expert - but then look at the mess the 'experts' have got us into - it seems they understand their system but don't make the leap to question the system itself and get too tied up in the small details not seeing the wood for the trees - noticed the same thing when discussing the housing market with people who added weight to their argument going on about how qualified and experienced in that area they were when I was saying that that was going to go tits up too).

Maybe I'm completely wrong but it does beg the question that if a numpty like me can be telling people that the housing market and economy is heading for a crash two or three years ago, why the experts couldn't see it coming until it happens (and why many of the extremely rich people were quietly buying up gold in the run up to all this - apart from Gordon Brown that is - he chose to sell ours off didn't he!).
 

·
XRV750 RD04
Joined
·
1,549 Posts
what gets me is that the UK assets/liabilities (often the same thing it seems) of just one bank (BoS I think) are greater than the gross domestic product of the entire country. How can this be?:confused:

so, if all the assets of all the banks in all the world were added up it would surely come to more than the GDP of the world. Again how can this be??? To anyone with any common sense it says the banks are insolvent, probably technically bankrupt and will fail sooner or later. Propping 'em up is only delaying the inevitable.
Watch that video I posted above and do a little reading up about how the futures/derivatives market works!

Oh, and as for financial advisors, economists, or whatever else the financial sector call their experts - how come no-one in the banking sector saw this coming and flogged off the assets while the going was good?
I suspect that many of them did and quietly made provision for it (some people will do very well out of all this by the time it's all over - unless the s**t really does hit the fan and civilisation as we know it crumbles - but I don't think that's likely to happen - or at least I hope not).
 

·
Deer Dodger
Joined
·
3,199 Posts
Save all your comments guys



SHEP, WHERE ARE YOU ?????



Stop lurking in the hedge :D:D:D:D
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,523 Posts
Well as someone who works in a bank I feel I need to reply. :hitler:

I think that banks will push every possible angle they can do to make money as they are accountable to their shareholders and that drives them to make money, constantly! Due to a lack of regulation or governance they have been allowed to lend in to risky markets, but the lure of good profits spurred them on.
Of course it's much more complicated than this.

And the issue now is that you have to help the banks out of this crisis. To leave them to sort it out themselves will take several banks to the wall and then where would we be, probably in a worse situation, monopoly or only a few banks left?

Interestingly as well my bank were more prudent than the other with this risk taking and subsequently have now been able to take over one of the other banks to create the UK's largest retail bank.

However I do agree with the sentiments of my tax funding the bailing out of this situation, but what are the alternatives.

As Lowflyer says... over to Shep!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
871 Posts
OK i am ready

Its is a financial coup D,etat as simple as that. In America they have now promised 8.5 trillion Dollars in Bailouts. The total amount of all mortgages outstanding in America is $10.6 trillion Dollars.

Which means that the American Government could have paid 80% of all the mortgages outstanding in America with the bailouts, would that have not stimulated the real economy?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What actually happened is "insider" banks wrote mountains of OTC Derivative contracts with "outsider" banks. They then pushed the markets so that these contracts activated. They knew that the counterparty "outsider" banks could not pay, So they ordered the Government to pay.

See, it is not a democracy you vote for the bankers man Gordon Brown or the bankers other man David Cameron. They are puppets who do as they are told. The media is all bought and paid for as well, so you only ever get their version of events.

So we needed the bailouts.

Taxpayer pays the Government, who then pay out to the "insider" banks. Remember it is allways a ZERO SUM GAME

Somebody loses, BUT SOMEBODY WINS

It is the biggest theft in history, orchestrated by a few and only for the few.

Remember it all started with "Sub Prime" and it was contained, well the whole sub prime market is only $1.3 trillion Dollars, so why do you need an $8.5 trillion dollar and growing daily bailout to fix a $1.3 trillion dollar problem

DaveS, unfortunatly your bank and HBOS were and still are completely insolvent, noticed the share price the last 2 days? you were pit into a shotgun marriage with HBOS and the Government will end up nationalaiing the new group only a question of time just like RBS and Barclays. HSBC are stronger, better capitalised and more diverse.

As regards letting the banks fail 100% YES. the bailouts are beyonf wacko. Let then fail other banks will spring up to take there place OR foreign banks particuarly Asian can gobble up what is left of our market and expand.

Thats the free market

The problem now is hyperinflation that will be coming down the pipe in the next year or so becuase of all the money printing.

See i was not "wacko" i warned many times on this Forum that this ****e was going to happen and it has.
 

·
The Angry Pasty Muncher
Joined
·
6,170 Posts
OK i am ready

Its is a financial coup D,etat as simple as that. In America they have now promised 8.5 trillion Dollars in Bailouts. The total amount of all mortgages outstanding in America is $10.6 trillion Dollars.

Which means that the American Government could have paid 80% of all the mortgages outstanding in America with the bailouts, would that have not stimulated the real economy?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What actually happened is "insider" banks wrote mountains of OTC Derivative contracts with "outsider" banks. They then pushed the markets so that these contracts activated. They knew that the counterparty "outsider" banks could not pay, So they ordered the Government to pay.

See, it is not a democracy you vote for the bankers man Gordon Brown or the bankers other man David Cameron. They are puppets who do as they are told. The media is all bought and paid for as well, so you only ever get their version of events.

So we needed the bailouts.

Taxpayer pays the Government, who then pay out to the "insider" banks. Remember it is allways a ZERO SUM GAME

Somebody loses, BUT SOMEBODY WINS

It is the biggest theft in history, orchestrated by a few and only for the few.

Remember it all started with "Sub Prime" and it was contained, well the whole sub prime market is only $1.3 trillion Dollars, so why do you need an $8.5 trillion dollar and growing daily bailout to fix a $1.3 trillion dollar problem

DaveS, unfortunatly your bank and HBOS were and still are completely insolvent, noticed the share price the last 2 days? you were pit into a shotgun marriage with HBOS and the Government will end up nationalaiing the new group only a question of time just like RBS and Barclays. HSBC are stronger, better capitalised and more diverse.

As regards letting the banks fail 100% YES. the bailouts are beyonf wacko. Let then fail other banks will spring up to take there place OR foreign banks particuarly Asian can gobble up what is left of our market and expand.

Thats the free market

The problem now is hyperinflation that will be coming down the pipe in the next year or so becuase of all the money printing.

See i was not "wacko" i warned many times on this Forum that this ****e was going to happen and it has.

AT LAST A BREIF SUMMERY OF WHATS ACTUALLY HAPPENING:confused::confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
333 Posts
I got fed up with running a small business and disillusioned by the red tape, so I wound it up in July this year.

As a limited company it was actally ILLEGAL to continue trading if you were insolvent!!!

Not sure if all these institutions etc, are classed as limited companies????
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,887 Posts
Shep you seem to know what your talking about :thumbright: So where will it all end ??????????????
 

·
XRV750 RD04
Joined
·
1,549 Posts
Which means that the American Government could have paid 80% of all the mortgages outstanding in America with the bailouts, would that have not stimulated the real economy?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But why should the tax payers be paying for that either? As much as I have sympathy on a personal level for people who have lost or are facing losing their homes with the housing bubble, many of those people helped to propagate the bubble by taking on loans far exceeding the real values of the properties they bought and their ability to repay over the term of the loan. I know the banks were complicit in this to a great degree but there has to be some personal responsibility for it on the part of borrowers too surely? It's not as if there wasn't a big rental market available (that hadn't been so over inflated - across most of the country at least - one of the reasons the rental market wasn't effected so much is because of the boom in buy-to-let).

This helped to price more cautious (or you could say sensible) people like myself out of the market completely.

The economy benefited from the housing bubble growing, and the governments reaction to it (perhaps understandably since they want to be re-elected) seems to have been to try to delay the inevitable correction (which ammounts to little more than price fixing on a massive scale when you think about it - which is at odds completely with the idea of the free market we're supposedly operating in).

I'm not sure what's worse - giving the money directly to the banks or giving it to people who've taken 15+ times their income loans on houses and spent the last decade spanking their monkey over Sarah Beeny and her cohorts and driving everyone nuts blabbering on about how much their houses are worth (while forgetting that it's only really worth that much if you don't need to live in it because otherwise it's only relative to all the other houses that are stupidly over priced too ofcourse - and if it's a buy to let property then yeah its paying your mortgage but for how long and how much risk is associated with that over the long term?).

If their mortgages were paid off by the tax payers in the process it'd likely leave the housing market over-inflated (or worse still spark another bubble as afterall if the tax payer pays off all those mortgages then those not so cautious people are then sitting on all that capital/colateral for more loans.....and many of them don't have a good track record where sensible long term borrowing is concerned do they?).

What actually happened is "insider" banks wrote mountains of OTC Derivative contracts with "outsider" banks. They then pushed the markets so that these contracts activated. They knew that the counterparty "outsider" banks could not pay, So they ordered the Government to pay.
If it was that sort of conspiracy, wouldn't it have been a better game plan for them to let the other banks fail then buy them up/foreclose. That seems to be what one school of thought suggests happened in the great depression (their theory being similar to yours that it was knowingly started by a small group in order to consolodate the market into fewer hands - and there does seem to be some evidence to suggest that in that case when you look at what happened to so many of the smaller banks - but whether it's true or not is anyones guess).

See, it is not a democracy you vote for the bankers man Gordon Brown or the bankers other man David Cameron. They are puppets who do as they are told. The media is all bought and paid for as well, so you only ever get their version of events.
There might be a far simpler explanation - that Tony Blair is an idiot, and that keen to distance himself from 'old-labour' he signed away anything the banks asked of him for that reason, and to encourage the perception that the UK was the place to do business (in some respects that worked - for a while anyway).

Taxpayer pays the Government, who then pay out to the "insider" banks. Remember it is allways a ZERO SUM GAME. Somebody loses, BUT SOMEBODY WINS
You're probably right there, but I think there have probably been quite a few winners and not the shadowy conspiracy you think it is myself . There are a lot of very rich people who've done very well out of the boom period who will now sit back and wait for the bust before the reinvestment starts again and everything can be bought up at rock bottom prices. They won't be worrying so much about their money losing value as they'll be smart enough to have it squirreled away somewhere safer or invested in something more solid, and they won't be the ones who the banks will be paying zero interest (or even charging you to keep your money with them which some of them are talking about now for regular man-in-the-street savers).

As regards letting the banks fail 100% YES. the bailouts are beyonf wacko. Let then fail other banks will spring up to take there place OR foreign banks particuarly Asian can gobble up what is left of our market and expand.

Thats the free market
Have to admit, that's the way I tend to look at it too. Either we live in a free market capitalist system or we don't, and you can't have your cake and eat it imho.

The reality though is that there isn't really a free market and never really has been imho (at least not in the way that supposedly influential philosophers like ayn rand forecasted). Just the illusion of one.

I can see the reason people don't want the banks to fail though as they're worried it could shake up the economy to such a degree that everyone suffers, and people are generally prepared to put up with anything to cling to the illusion of security.

Plus if you are right and this is some ruse perpetrated by a small group of insiders, then letting the banks fail could be playing into their hands in an even bigger way?

See i was not "wacko" i warned many times on this Forum that this ****e was going to happen and it has.
:D I might not agree with everything you say here (and that's only my opinion and you could be right and I could be completely wrong - I'm not an expert), but I know the feeling. I got exactly the same reaction when I was telling people buying buy to let properties that I though the sh*t was going to hit the fan eventually myself, and I've been doing that for a few years now too.

Particularly over the housing bubble. What was going to happen there was so obvious anyone should have seen it coming but even when I talked to people who supposedly knew about that market "what happens when this happens which leads to this, then this happens, then this..." the usual reaction was that the banks and government wouldn't let such things happen (forgetting that banks are notoriously greedy, and governments notoriously incompetent).

Just my take on things and I could be completely wrong, but I'm not sure it is a shadowy conspiracy in this case (not I reject the idea of such things out of hand). I think it's had more to do with greed, incompetence, and otherwise intelligent people sticking their heads in the sand because the illusion was so alluring while it lasted.
 

·
UP THE WORKER COMRADE
Joined
·
294 Posts
Bilderbergers, carpet baggers and the likes of Peter Mandleson have and will always look out for the interest of thier mates.

They realise money is an illusion, we all believe in 'fairies'. The system only works as long as the plebs believe.

Others who really run this planet understand this and are only interested in assets, land, comodities. They will make a killing out of this farce and we will pay for it.

There is an alternative, we take back the common ownership of the means of production and work for our common good, not for the hording of wealth by the super rich.

UP THE WORKERS!
 

·
XRV750 RD04
Joined
·
1,549 Posts
There is an alternative, we take back the common ownership of the means of production and work for our common good, not for the hording of wealth by the super rich.

UP THE WORKERS!
Yeah, coz that really worked for the communists didn't it! :D

Not that I've got any great suggestions myself I've got to admit.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,746 Posts
But why should the tax payers be paying for that either? As much as I have sympathy on a personal level for people who have lost or are facing losing their homes with the housing bubble, many of those people helped to propagate the bubble by taking on loans far exceeding the real values of the properties they bought and their ability to repay over the term of the loan. I know the banks were complicit in this to a great degree but there has to be some personal responsibility for it on the part of borrowers too surely? It's not as if there wasn't a big rental market available (that hadn't been so over inflated - across most of the country at least - one of the reasons the rental market wasn't effected so much is because of the boom in buy-to-let).

This helped to price more cautious (or you could say sensible) people like myself out of the market completely.

The economy benefited from the housing bubble growing, and the governments reaction to it (perhaps understandably since they want to be re-elected) seems to have been to try to delay the inevitable correction (which ammounts to little more than price fixing on a massive scale when you think about it - which is at odds completely with the idea of the free market we're supposedly operating in).

I'm not sure what's worse - giving the money directly to the banks or giving it to people who've taken 15+ times their income loans on houses and spent the last decade spanking their monkey over Sarah Beeny and her cohorts and driving everyone nuts blabbering on about how much their houses are worth (while forgetting that it's only really worth that much if you don't need to live in it because otherwise it's only relative to all the other houses that are stupidly over priced too ofcourse - and if it's a buy to let property then yeah its paying your mortgage but for how long and how much risk is associated with that over the long term?).

If their mortgages were paid off by the tax payers in the process it'd likely leave the housing market over-inflated (or worse still spark another bubble as afterall if the tax payer pays off all those mortgages then those not so cautious people are then sitting on all that capital/colateral for more loans.....and many of them don't have a good track record where sensible long term borrowing is concerned do they?).

If it was that sort of conspiracy, wouldn't it have been a better game plan for them to let the other banks fail then buy them up/foreclose. That seems to be what one school of thought suggests happened in the great depression (their theory being similar to yours that it was knowingly started by a small group in order to consolodate the market into fewer hands - and there does seem to be some evidence to suggest that in that case when you look at what happened to so many of the smaller banks - but whether it's true or not is anyones guess).

There might be a far simpler explanation - that Tony Blair is an idiot, and that keen to distance himself from 'old-labour' he signed away anything the banks asked of him for that reason, and to encourage the perception that the UK was the place to do business (in some respects that worked - for a while anyway).

You're probably right there, but I think there have probably been quite a few winners and not the shadowy conspiracy you think it is myself . There are a lot of very rich people who've done very well out of the boom period who will now sit back and wait for the bust before the reinvestment starts again and everything can be bought up at rock bottom prices. They won't be worrying so much about their money losing value as they'll be smart enough to have it squirreled away somewhere safer or invested in something more solid, and they won't be the ones who the banks will be paying zero interest (or even charging you to keep your money with them which some of them are talking about now for regular man-in-the-street savers).

Have to admit, that's the way I tend to look at it too. Either we live in a free market capitalist system or we don't, and you can't have your cake and eat it imho.

The reality though is that there isn't really a free market and never really has been imho (at least not in the way that supposedly influential philosophers like ayn rand forecasted). Just the illusion of one.

I can see the reason people don't want the banks to fail though as they're worried it could shake up the economy to such a degree that everyone suffers, and people are generally prepared to put up with anything to cling to the illusion of security.

Plus if you are right and this is some ruse perpetrated by a small group of insiders, then letting the banks fail could be playing into their hands in an even bigger way?

:D I might not agree with everything you say here (and that's only my opinion and you could be right and I could be completely wrong - I'm not an expert), but I know the feeling. I got exactly the same reaction when I was telling people buying buy to let properties that I though the sh*t was going to hit the fan eventually myself, and I've been doing that for a few years now too.

Particularly over the housing bubble. What was going to happen there was so obvious anyone should have seen it coming but even when I talked to people who supposedly knew about that market "what happens when this happens which leads to this, then this happens, then this..." the usual reaction was that the banks and government wouldn't let such things happen (forgetting that banks are notoriously greedy, and governments notoriously incompetent).

Just my take on things and I could be completely wrong, but I'm not sure it is a shadowy conspiracy in this case (not I reject the idea of such things out of hand). I think it's had more to do with greed, incompetence, and otherwise intelligent people sticking their heads in the sand because the illusion was so alluring while it lasted.
WOW Zenarchy
How come you could not find Ullapool????:D:D:D:D:D
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,746 Posts
I'm less experienced at map reading than I am at rambling on endlessly about things :D
Good enough for me.:DI teach you basic navigation skills,you try to explain to me how i get out of this financial s~#t:D:D:D
 

·
XRV750 RD04
Joined
·
1,549 Posts
Good enough for me.:DI teach you basic navigation skills,you try to explain to me how i get out of this financial s~#t:D:D:D
:D If I had that sort of information I'd be a far richer person than I am (which means there's a good chance I'm completely wrong about everything I've just written ofcourse - but if I am then at least I'm in good company and as confused as everyone else is :D).
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top