Prudence - Why bother?

TuftyMatt

The "mistakes" made by us Icesave customers are minimal when put up against the faults of the UK banks.

I think it will cost £4.5b to repay us all and if the Icelandic leaders would do their bit it would be much much less.

Look at those figures against what AD done yesterday and you will see it's really not that much.

I hope in time we, as a country, claim against the Icelandic people and regain our cash. If not those in areas where the councils are at risk of not getting their money back will pay even more than the rest of us.

pumpndump

Milarky wrote: »

What's with this 'degenerates' abuse? the Daily Mail probably never used the 'n' word either, but they rallied a mob tendency it seems. [From 1980. How times haven't changed...]

You can't go around mouthing off at the least members of society in general like that without considering the consequences:

a) I, and people like me, will upbrade you, Sir, for doing so!

b) If your DM fantasy was realised and all immigrants were got rid of - including second and third generation 'immigrants' - do you really think the UK would become a sunlit upland or a deserted property estate?

I'm all for non-pc remarks - as they have a grain of truth about them often and being pc comes at the price of allowing some real howlers to go past but, please, raise the level of abuse a notch would you?

Ta

I haven't read a dm for years.

When I say degenerates, I am talking about the middle class.

Why do YOU [not I] think that immigrants are degenerates?

StevieJ

pumpndump wrote: »

We are. How can we save and invest if we are being choked with tax to pay for a load of degenerates?

Thats not fair on Northern Rock savers, they thought they were saving in stable institution.

Buster_Danog

So how much did the Times donate to Farepak savers when they lost their money, and does the Times also take issue with the average worker paying more tax as a percentage of income than many city fat cats?

It's nice of the Times to say "we told you so" but I don't read the Times. I invested a small amount and had no reason to disbelieve the claims of the Icelandic compensation scheme that other countries would assist them if such assistance were needed. It's simply wrong to say the information was out there for the average Joe on the street. I feel that people who invsted over 35k were responible because they should have been spreading their risk, but beyond that the article is a fallacy - this was not stocks and shares.

StevieJ

Franco78 wrote: »

So how much did the Times donate to Farepak savers when they lost their money, and does the Times also take issue with the average worker paying more tax as a percentage of income than many city fat cats?

It's nice of the Times to say "we told you so" but I don't read the Times. I invested a small amount and had no reason to disbelieve the claims of the Icelandic compensation scheme that other countries would assist them if such assistance were needed. It's simply wrong to say the information was out there for the average Joe on the street. I feel that people who invsted over 35k were responible because they should have been spreading their risk, but beyond that the article is a fallacy - this was not stocks and shates.

Don't let it worry you I find these people moral hazard people totally bizarre.

Nick_C

Franco78 wrote: »

I feel that people who invsted over 35k were responible because they should have been spreading their risk, but beyond that the article is a fallacy - this was not stocks and shares.

I disagree. I would expect people depositing money in an overseas bank to check out the level of cover being offered. In this case, the first c£16K is meant to be protected by the Icelandic Govt. Why should the British taxpayer be expected to pick up the bill if the Icelandic Govt reneges on its promise?

There was a clear identifiable risk.

tomstickland

Milarky wrote: »

b) If your DM fantasy was realised and all immigrants were got rid of - including second and third generation 'immigrants' - do you really think the UK would become a sunlit upland or a deserted property estate?

What made you associate degenerates with immigrants?

StevieJ

baby_boomer wrote: »

The Times captured my thoughts exactly.

Times Business Comment

"......the bailout of Icesave depositors is morally hazardous in the extreme. People who put money into an Icelandic internet bank offering high rates knew, or should have known, that it was a bit risky. They would certainly have known if they had read the warning by my colleague Patrick Hosking in July. By promising unlimited compensation to Icesave depositors, possibly at the expense of other more cautious savers, the Government is telling us we don't need to be careful about where we put our money in future. So we won't...."

Elsewhere in the paper a saver with £180K at IceSave expressed relief. Up to Friday he only had £35K protection even if the Icelandic government's word was its bond. [The bloke may have money but he is a financial idiot. He thinks that the money must be somewhere and the someone, somewhere is sitting on his tidy pile.]

Yet he may now be compensated out of the taxes of the Farepak savers who struggled to fund a family Christmas and lost their money even though they weren't getting interest!

Were you doing this ranting when Northern Rock was nationalized? I am starting to believe that the Baby Boomer generation is the most selfish this country has ever known (outside the Hellfire club that is). Just get on with spending the Kids inheritance.

pumpndump

StevieJ wrote: »

Thats not fair on Northern Rock savers, they thought they were saving in stable institution.

They're in a stable institution now.

tonyhamm

This makes me angry.

Just two comments from the Times article, but repeated again and again with the BBC and media.
ICESAVERS ....'didn't they realise higher returns mean more risk','It demostrates how economically ignorant they are'

We have a FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING SYSTEM where EACH SAVERS MONEY is LENT OUT 9-12 TIMES. Savers have always depended on the systems PYRAMID SCHEME tendancies to be REIGNED IN AND REGULATED - why? because of its tendancy to leave BANK HOLIDAYS scattered throughout the calendar, when a PYRAMID of BAD LOANS collapses means savers deposits are wiped out and total economic chaos ensues and a BANK HOLIDAY is declared in law to prevent BANK RUNS collapsing the country..

"FDR's first act as President was to declare a national "bank holiday" – closing the banks for a three-day cooling off period. The most memorable line from the President's speech was directed to the bank crisis – "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." .
http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe30s/money_08.html

The article is RUBBISH. Its 110% the fault of Government and the FSA regulators, and the central bank which runs the banking system, NOT OF THE SAVER. THE SAVER IS REMOVED FROM CONSIDERING RISK UNDER THIS SYSTEM BECAUSE OF THE PYRAMID/BUBBLE TENDANCIES IN THE SYSTEM. As such SAVERS HAVE TO BELIEVE THIER SAVINGS ARE 100% RISK FREE TO PREVENT BANK RUNS TAKING THE ENTIRE PYRAMID DOWN. THE GOVERNMENT AND CENTRAL BANK HAVE TO BACKSTOP THIS SYSTEM WITH LENDING TO EACH BANK THE FSA LICENSES, PROTECTING AGAINST ANY BANK RUNS TAKING THE WHOLE SYSTEM DOWN..

The alternative banking system is the 100% reserve system, a system of banking in which each savers deposit is loaned out exactly ONCE. (This is what savers THINK happens but doesn't). In this system any bank run is irrelevant, as only a few people are affected - not the entire PYRAMID.
With this system there is no need for regulators, government etc... Because entities called LAY BANKS are the only banks allowed to offer RISK FREE savings, banks which invest in government bonds only. Any savers seeking higher returns would take on RISK. Their would thus be a active interest and media in any lending. The merest HINT of a bubble/pyramid of lending, and savers would pull out thier SAVINGS, taking the damage, and collapsing the BUBBLE early in Day 1, for fear of losing thier unprotected savings. Idiot instituions like Northern Rock would go in week1, not YEARS AFTER BUILDING A BUBBLE, allowing everyone and thier children to pay for it dearly thorugh taxes, and create HUGE PROFITS for the well connected bankers.

So whose economically ignorant now then?