We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Compare dealing with the banks: Brown v Obama
lemonjelly
Posts: 8,014 Forumite
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8412852.stm
Obama gives the impression at least of playing hardball with the banks. I find some of his pressure that he's placed on the banks quite interesting.
Over here, we've had some action with the tax proposals, & I'm sure there is a lot we don't hear about. I suspect there is a perception that the current government is too soft on the bankers.
It was mentioned on another thread that the government is too afraid to call the bankers bluff. I don't think they are, but that is by the by.
However it appears that Obama is including a media based publicity campaign, to almost shame the banks into acting.
Do you think either is better than the other? Or alternately, is the best option somewhere between the 2?
Obama gives the impression at least of playing hardball with the banks. I find some of his pressure that he's placed on the banks quite interesting.
Over here, we've had some action with the tax proposals, & I'm sure there is a lot we don't hear about. I suspect there is a perception that the current government is too soft on the bankers.
It was mentioned on another thread that the government is too afraid to call the bankers bluff. I don't think they are, but that is by the by.
However it appears that Obama is including a media based publicity campaign, to almost shame the banks into acting.
Do you think either is better than the other? Or alternately, is the best option somewhere between the 2?
It's getting harder & harder to keep the government in the manner to which they have become accustomed.
0
Comments
-
Oh for the love of god . it's all political posturing. The politicians know full well that they have to talk a good game, while at the same time they know full well they can't push the banking industry away or be too punitive because it will drastically affect their tax revenues if they get too hard.
The Brown / Darling bonus tax is a farce. Anyone with a GCSE in maths knows the way to avoid paying it but, hey, it pleased the unthinking masses, didn't it? They have to strike a balance between being seen to say something, while having no impact.
The cynical Labour party are throwing their entire political weight behind this. They make the right noises in the hope of getting a few extra votes, but know deep down the election is lost so they can act like bulls in china shops with absolutely no comeback, knowing it will be up to the Tories to repair the damage.
It will raise precisely ZERO in revenue because everyong will restructure the bonus pool, but at the same time it sends a strong message to the world that the UK is no longer open for business.
Well done guys.
Much more harmful to the banking industry - and other high paying, wealth creating roles - is the increased tax burden on incomes over £150k and the rethink on tax relief for pensions. THAT will drive people away.0 -
It's all a sham.
For one thing, governments do what the bank tells them, not the other way around.
Obama's "team" consists of many people left over from the bush administration and many of those are ex-bankers.
Some much for all the "change"
When will people wake up to the fact that politicians are lying f*cking thieves who only care about getting elected and rewarding their friends.
We are witnessing the biggest bank robbery in history, but it's the bank doing the robbing."The problem with quotes on the internet is that you never know whether they are genuine or not" -
Albert Einstein0 -
It's all a sham.
For one thing, governments do what the bank tells them, not the other way around.
Obama's "team" consists of many people left over from the bush administration and many of those are ex-bankers.
Some much for all the "change"
When will people wake up to the fact that politicians are lying f*cking thieves who only care about getting elected and rewarding their friends.
We are witnessing the biggest bank robbery in history, but it's the bank doing the robbing.
You say the cutest naieve things. It's like you've been studying it this week at some !!!!poor mid level polytechnic, so you need to shout about it.
It's a good job noone on here takes you seriously though.0 -
You say the cutest naieve things. It's like you've been studying it this week at some !!!!poor mid level polytechnic, so you need to shout about it.
It's a good job noone on here takes you seriously though.
When people think that banks lending more money is the solution to our problems I know they haven't got a clue.
When a president says it I know he's either corrupt or clueless - take your pick.
The fact remains that debt is not wealth and lending more money to people who can barely afford to pay what they already owe is ludricous.
It seems that lending money is the solution to everything these days.
It would be hilarious if it wasn't so dangerous."The problem with quotes on the internet is that you never know whether they are genuine or not" -
Albert Einstein0 -
100% gauranteed?
:rolleyes:0 -
Mad thought...
Since the both the US and the UK's financial systems are controlled by the banks.
Maybe it's them who is actually in charge? A bit like the queen and the uk government?0 -
Mad thought...
Since the both the US and the UK's financial systems are controlled by the banks.
Maybe it's them who is actually in charge? A bit like the queen and the uk government?
There's no maybe about it.
If you had a magic money making machine, you would be in charge.
Money has no value in itself. It is just an abstract representation of all our resources.
It is our means of exchange which enables us to exchange goods and services in different timeframes.
Why should a private company be allowed to issue and control it?
And there is no reason why we shoud have to pay interest on it. Apart from giving the bank the opportunity to steal from us through inflation and the government to steal from us through higher taxation.
It is madness and that is why money reform including an end to a debt based money system must be at the heart of any solution to get us out of this mess we are in."The problem with quotes on the internet is that you never know whether they are genuine or not" -
Albert Einstein0 -
What the article failed to say in relation to:-The meeting came as Citigroup announced it was ready to pay back an emergency loan of $20bn to the US government earlier than expected.
Is that the top 100 staff of the banks that have received US Government bail out funds, currently have their pay levels capped. So its in their interests to repay the money.0 -
The meeting came as Citigroup announced it was ready to pay back an emergency loan of $20bn to the US government earlier than expected
Yeah but they just made that money this morning in their
:eek:magic money making machine'In nature, there are neither rewards nor punishments - there are Consequences.'0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards