Banks To Not Lend You More Of Your Own Money

Max_Headroom_3

BRITAIN'S banks are to receive more of your money so they can continue to not lend it to you, it has emerged.

The banks say a second bail-out will be essential if they are to achieve their medium-term strategic goal of having all the money and throwing you out of your house.

Treasury sources admitted the initial multi-billion pound bail-out had not unlocked the credit markets as hoped and so the banks may now have to be filled with £10 notes until they burst.

Economists say this policy of 'quantatative bursting' will mean some money will eventually have to be released from the building so bank employees can at least get to their desks.

The government hopes this money will be picked up in the street by consumers who will then spend it on Jaguars and fine china.

A Treasury spokesman said: "Most of the banks have just piled the first lot of money in corridors and cleaning cupboards, although HBOS does seem to have spent quite a bit of it on magic beans and aromatherapy oil.

"We did plant the beans in the hope a massive beanstalk would appear which would then lead to a magical, golden egg-laying goose-type scenario. But that didn't happen."

He added: "We think the beans may have been eaten by a homeless man, or possibly a crow."


http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/banks-to-not-lend-you-more-of-your-own-money-200901051486/

Idiophreak

Err...surely as long as the government continues to borrow money hand over first, it isn't *really* our own money the banks will (not) be lending back to us?

kwikbreaks

The government hopes this money will be picked up in the street by consumers who will then spend it on Jaguars and fine china.

Are you sure about that? Wedgewood are in the hands of the receivers and Jaguar were told to take a hike last year when they asked for a sub.

penguine

Idiophreak wrote: »

Err...surely as long as the government continues to borrow money hand over first, it isn't *really* our own money the banks will (not) be lending back to us?

It's our future money. Or our children and grandchildren's, more likely.

kwikbreaks

It's not our children's money - theirs will all be taken up repaying Gordon's PFI deals from the last 10 years.

Our grandchildren will be busy paying off the latest round of borrowing so it will have to be our great grandchildren that will be paying the next borrowing binge.

Idiophreak

Assuming, that is, we ever actually pay it off - didn't the tories more or less ignore the national debt last time they were in power?

FoxtonsRIP

We shouldn't give the banks another dime. And the banks shouldn't lend a penny to any homeowner with less than a 40% deposit. That would bring house prices down to a reasonable level where they could start lending again

kwikbreaks

Is it really that good an idea to be lending money to people who are possibly going to lose their jobs and default on the mortgage? That was last year's tactic and times have moved on.

Chris2685

Quality thread.

penguine

kwikbreaks wrote: »

Is it really that good an idea to be lending money to people who are possibly going to lose their jobs and default on the mortgage? That was last year's tactic and times have moved on.

Just about anyone could possibly lose their job. If the bank ensures borrowers have a decent deposit, that they're borrowing a reasonable multiple of their salary, and that they take out unemployment insurance, then yes they should go ahead and give them a mortgage. I wouldn't buy a house right now, but if someone in a good financial position wants to do so then they should be allowed to. The fact that some banks were lending to people who were a bad risk up until quite recently, doesn't mean that people who are a good risk should be prevented from buying a house now.

Pipkin

Chris2685 wrote: »

Quality thread.

I was just thinking that...