Greedy Banks

System

Jesus, banks really can't win can they?

lostinrates

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Jesus, banks really can't win can they?

Who can?

inspector_monkfish

lostinrates wrote: »

Who can?

Everyones a winner, baby.
Thats no lie.

bendix

So long as they stop acting like victims and railing against things they can't change, when in fact it's very easy to be part of it all.



where is ninky when you need her?

MyLastFiver

bendix wrote: »

Putting aside the question of whether greed is good or not (I personally find the question, pointless, because something natural can be neither good nor bad, just natural), why are the banks being greedy, and on whose behalf?

A bank is a business, pure and simple. It is designed to provide services in return for a profit. All profit is good. Big profits are very good. They are why the bank and the business exist in the first place, and such profit is sought to pay hundreds of thousands of shareholders a handsome return for their good faith investment.

Providing access to those shares is not prohibited or is closed off to us, how can that be a bad thing?

Personally, I hope banks increase rates on dodgy loans, sharply increase credit card charges, increase bank fees and do EVERYTHING within their power to increase profits and, in consequence, returns to the investors like me, which they will do so long as they don't get too far out of kilter with what their competitors are doing.

Capitalism . . . ahhhhhhh, it's a wonderful thing baby. I cant believe how young and naieve and angry I used to be when I wore a Lenin badge as a student all those years ago. I should have sold the Lenin badge, and bought a Barclays share with the proceeds.

Well, bank profiteering would be more morally acceptable if they:

1. Operated within a competitive market. But as it stands, there are huge barriers to entry to banking so a handful of giant corporations have the rest of us by the balls.

2. Operated within a free market. Unlike any other type of business, when a bank goes t!ts up the taxpayer is liable for the loss.

andygb

MyLastFiver wrote: »

Well, bank profiteering would be more morally acceptable if they:

1. Operated within a competitive market. But as it stands, there are huge barriers to entry to banking so a handful of giant corporations have the rest of us by the balls.

2. Operated within a free market. Unlike any other type of business, when a bank goes t!ts up the taxpayer is liable for the loss.

Absolutely correct, they have their cake and make sure that they gorge themselves on it.
Who in their right mind thought it would be a good idea to let the banks self regulate? Oh yes, it was Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, a game of pass the parcel, well it seems that the dour Scot has been left holding the baby.

mewbie_2

bendix wrote: »

greed is good

I will say a prayer for your soul at our next Gospel meeting. Did not the Lord cast out the money lenders and destroy the tables of profit? Have we Christians not suffered for ten thousand years because of the human nature of greed and by association sexual perversion? Is it unreasonable to hope that when the Messiah returns he will knock at least 35% off Barclays shares?

Yes you ditched the Lenin badge. But you did not turn to God.

StevieJ

mewbie wrote: »

I will say a prayer for your soul at our next Gospel meeting. Did not the Lord cast out the money lenders and destroy the tables of profit? Have we Christians not suffered for ten thousand years because of the human nature of greed and by association sexual perversion? Is it unreasonable to hope that when the Messiah returns he will knock at least 35% off Barclays shares?

Yes you ditched the Lenin badge. But you did not turn to God.

mewbie, what are you smoking

mewbie_2

StevieJ wrote: »

mewbie, what are you smoking

I have thanked you StevieJ although I know not of what you speak.

mr.broderick

StevieJ wrote: »

mewbie, what are you smoking

As long as it is not cok i'm happy.