Ask the Chancellor a question on the banking crisis

mbrierley

Turnbull1961 wrote: »

Can someone explain to me in simple terms where all these billions have gone and who lost it?

It's called trickle up capitalism. Not a great fan of current capitalism. I prefer something more regulated, transparent and with more public responsibility but essentially the system of the last 30 years use to ensure that money flows to the richer people (and I mean RICH - those that have billions). Most people that have a few millions have either inherited it or earned it. The rest have sussed out the how to siphon off money without doing much to earn it and certainly doing nothing to enhance society from their wealth.
It's a perfect marriage of government sycophancy and corporate greed. In the short term one might say those "fat cats" who were CEOs or those traders who got millions in bonuses are to blame (and recovering some of their grotesque overpayments would be good - at least as a catharsis) but truthfully for every million these fat cats make those hidden behind the scenes make dozens of times more.

So, my answer is ... the money never existed but the few rich have been rewarded and those at the bottom of this pyramid scam have all lost out and will pay the rich from their future earnings. This tells you that the poor have lost it. It will go to the richest of us and in the meantime the money doesn't exist (yet).

I know it's a bit simple but it is close to the real thing I believe.

baby_boomer

If banking is about managing risk, why did the Financial Services Authority ask more questions of the banks along the lines of "What if the US housing market fell by 30% and the UK housing market by 20%?"

And if the FSA wasn't asking these questions, why weren't the banks themselves?

In an age of high relationship breakdown, why were FSA letting the banks push the envelope on high income multiples from couples?

Why didn't the FSA latch on to the riskiness of credit default swaps and Structured Investment Vehicles? Couldn't they see that these increased risk and that SIVs removed the crucial responsibility for checking/managing the loan from its owner.

Why did the government stand by and watch a private members' bill go through Parliament, supported by MPs from all three parties, to enable Building Societies to raise more money from the wholesale markets - just like banks. This bill removes one of the safeguards in the financial system which makes it more secure.

nothingwitty

I would like to know why, if I am now as a taxpayer, a part-owner of my bank, they can continue to charge me £35 for going over my limit!!! It's like I'm penalising myself!

nalex73

How is it that we all know that the banks promoted all this hassle in the first place by ''Giving'' money away as far back as 5 or more years.??? To children, to the younger generation, to those who couldn't afford to repay, to students etc etc etc I have no simpathy for them or the pain they falsely suggest that they are suffering. The stress that their staff have suffered over the years; caused by the executives & shareholder greed, to create more money to stitch-up the needy, & to rise up the ladder of grasping financiers etc. Any comments form their staff would be enlightening I sure.!!!!

Old_Slaphead

I'd like to know why the Government (aka the taxpayer) can continue to underwrite the very generous, guaranteed and inflation proofed public sector pension schemes whilst taxing and regulating private final salary schemes out of existance (other than for the old utility monopolies).

I'd also like to know what the government has done for business generally over it's 11 year tenure given that, during that time, the stockmarket, which I perceive as an indicator of the wealth of our major companies, has failed to grow at all.

nomorekids

I would like to know why the government is so pro institutions and not the people. My complaint about my endowment (which is now going to repay less than half of my morgage) was time barred despite not receiving any red warning letters and even when the copies were sent to me (3 years late) one of recommendations was "wait and see" ie timebarring myself. Still the ombudsman sided with them. People should at least believe the government is on their side, I simply no longer do.

nomoneytoday

nothingwitty wrote: »

I would like to know why, if I am now as a taxpayer, a part-owner of my bank, they can continue to charge me £35 for going over my limit!!! It's like I'm penalising myself!

Because not all the other 49,999,999 owners are going overdrawn - so why should they pay your charges?

pensbury

There is clearly a public perception that the banks and other financial institutions around the world have to a very large extent brought about the present crisis by their arrogance and greed.

Under the circumstances I believe many members of the public, already feeling victimised by the banks, find it unacceptable for the banks to be bailed out with public money while still continuing their regieme of unfair bank charges.

As part of the price for public support, the banks should be told in no uncertain terms immediately to stop unfair charges, and to cease their squalid and unsavoury abuse of the legal system to avoid paying back the money they have bullied out of the most vulnerable of their customers.

pensbury

Because not all the other 49,999,999 owners are going overdrawn - so why should they pay your charges?

Don't you understand?

There is NO SUCH THING as free banking! For years the so-called "free" accounts have been subsidised by the bank charge victims. What the banks have been doing is taking the charges for running people's accounts (including yours "nomoneytoday"), and dumping them ALL on those customers who by definition are the poorest and most vulnerable.

Is THAT fair??

nothingwitty

nomoneytoday wrote: »

Because not all the other 49,999,999 owners are going overdrawn - so why should they pay your charges?

Must be great in your world being able to judge others so quickly.

I haven't actually gone overdrawn in many months but I know there are those who struggle financially and are charged excessively for simple mistakes. I think it's unfair that they should have to pay for the banks twice. In effect, those who go overdrawn will be disproportionally bailing the bank out.