Taxpayers' £200bn to insure banks' losses

WTF?_2

Dylanwing wrote: »

How about easing the pressure a small amount by cutting back on excessive pay and bonusses at the Banks? As we own most of them, we can set a realistic 'market rate'.

The market sets the 'market rate'. Normally, the central banks steers the market but that mechanism has long since broken due to daft interest rate policies as central bank rates set rates considerably lower than what was sensible.

The whole thing is quite staggering, the taxpayers seem to be a bottomless pit of money, but we are getting very little in exchange

You are getting the non-collapse of the banking system, which would be catastrophic for everyone.

- It is clear that Banks have been somewhere between totally incompetent and fraudulent, and yet there is no effort to clean them up, and use them as an instrument to alleviate the effects of recession on 'hard-working families', plus those who skive a bit, do the bare minimum, don't have families, or can't get a job. Let's get a bit of value for money out of this.

What would you definie as 'value for money'? A continuation of stupid, risky lending that will merely push prices up despite the fact that earnings can't hope to keep pace ... leading to the economy being skewed and distorted even more?

Generali

Hi !!!!!!,

Ultimately it'll make no difference to house prices as the increased burden on the taxpayer will reduce the income available to make mortgage payments.

So the latest bailout will be GBP33,000/taxpayer. That'll be GBP1650/year/household that can't be used to support a mortgage as if you try to spend that money on yourself or your family (not matter how desperate your situation) you'll be imprisoned.

amcluesent

>you'll be imprisoned<

It's now rational in Britain to misreport your wealth/income. The Thatcher reforms of lowering the marginal tax rates, which increased gross revenues, have been reversed.

Marginal rate increases + means testing = Swiss vaults.

piggeh

I don't get why, when the Government owns several of the banks already, it does not step in and act more forcefully in coercing these banks to act how they wish them to act (ie increasing lending to business & mortgage buyers)? Is it because their policies are simply unworkable (I heard the 'loans' etc are at at stupid rates and have conditions around them that make them unworkable?) or for some other reason?

Generali

piggeh wrote: »

I don't get why, when the Government owns several of the banks already, it does not step in and act more forcefully in coercing these banks to act how they wish them to act (ie increasing lending to business & mortgage buyers)? Is it because their policies are simply unworkable (I heard the 'loans' etc are at at stupid rates and have conditions around them that make them unworkable?) or for some other reason?

Because if the Government acts in any way to control the policies of the banks they are deemed to own them under national accounting rules and so their liabilities go on to the Government's balance sheet and so the pretence that the national debt will fall below 40% of GDP without a default in my children's lifetime is exposed as the myth that it is.

tinker1

So those guys who live on islands in the pacific have no debt...right?
Here in GB we have huge debt. If we had to pay back this debt, does this mean we would be worse off than than those in their mud huts? Logic tells me we would be worse off than them.

harryhound

The lovely Angela Knight (of the two female tweedle dums and tweedle dees that represent the banks - she is the one who announces the "good" news rather than having to defend the indefinsible) was on "Broadcasting House" (Radio 4 09:00) this morning.
When pressed to explain what had been stiched up she more or less said "I can't tell you til tomorrow (Monday), but today's newspapers seem to know".

Presumably there is another huge Gordon Brown re-election fund thinly disguised as some sort of insurance company.

This will mean that the bail out will not immediately appear on the government deficit borrowing requirement and when and if the inevitable happens: the NINJA's get repossessed, it will not appear to be the government that is instructing the bailiffs ?

Harry.

So those guys who live on islands in the pacific have no debt.
I have no debt, because like those guys in the pacific, I got a half price home by building it myself, while paying off my father's debts..
However this has not stopped the government from nationalising my modest savings by reducing their real interest rate after tax to a negative figure.

For those of you who missed my posting in the early hours here again are some interesting figures - let's revisit them this time next year (even if we have to use the Library computer 'cos the bailiff has repossessed the one at home:eek:):

[SIZE=-1]Here are the (prime) mortgage lenders' figures and guestimates[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]. (Note the admission that they got it wrong last May. Note also the projected ballooning in the figure for arrears, not matched by that for repossessions) [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/publications/marketcommentary

Generali

harryhound wrote: »

The lovely Angela Knight (of the two female tweedle dums and tweedle dees that represent the banks - she is the one who announces the "good" news rather than having to defend the indefinsible) was on "Broadcasting House" (Radio 4 09:00) this morning.
When pressed to explain what had been stiched up she more or less said "I can't tell you til tomorrow (Monday), but today's newspapers seem to know".

Presumably there is another huge Gordon Brown re-election fund thinly disguised as some sort of insurance company.

This will mean that the bail out will not immediately appear on the government deficit borrowing requirement and when and if the inevitable happens: the NINJA's get repossessed, it will not appear to be the government that is instructing the bailiffs ?

Harry.

So those guys who live on islands in the pacific have no debt.
I have no debt, because like those guys in the pacific, I got a half price home by building it myself, while paying off my father's debts..
However this has not stopped the government from nationalising my modest savings by reducing their real interest rate after tax to a negative figure.

So again Mr Peston has been fed price sensitive information and released it.

I hope you guys find a good way to deal with Mr Brown in the end. You could force feed him the amount of cash in fifty pound notes that he took from your children to "save" the economy as an example..

WTF?_2

harryhound wrote: »

Presumably there is another huge Gordon Brown re-election fund thinly disguised as some sort of insurance company.

Yes, they've just increased the PSBR:

Price of
Subsidising
Brown's
Re-election.

(taken from a post seen on HPC).

The goal would be to trigger some sort of inflationary boom prior to a general election.

setmefree2

Generali wrote: »

I hope you guys find a good way to deal with Mr Brown in the end. You could force feed him the amount of cash in fifty pound notes that he took from your children to "save" the economy as an example..

Generali my kids have gained massively from government spending in the last 15 years. For example, one of my kids was in a class of 19 pupils - compare that with the 40 in my primary school days! So it's not like they haven't benefited from government spending is it?