Why are anarchists targeting HSBC?

Generali

ILW wrote: »

Why not two separate companies where one has no liability if the other should fail. Could address the "too big to fail" issue.

I'm not saying it's a good or a bad idea but if you do this then you no longer have a company called 'RBS'. You have 2 completely separate companies called perhaps RBS Investment Banking PLC and RBS Retail PLC.

If it were down to me, I'd make all banks partnerships with no limited liability. That would mean in the event of insolvency, partners would be responsible for all liabilities that were unable to be covered by asset sales to the point of selling their home.

ILW

Generali wrote: »

I'm not saying it's a good or a bad idea but if you do this then you no longer have a company called 'RBS'. You have 2 completely separate companies called perhaps RBS Investment Banking PLC and RBS Retail PLC.

If it were down to me, I'd make all banks partnerships with no limited liability. That would mean in the event of insolvency, partners would be responsible for all liabilities that were unable to be covered by asset sales to the point of selling their home.

I do have to agree that limited liability and directors liability is a bit of a farce at times, even with much smaller companies. Often just a front for legalised fraud.

vivatifosi

Generali wrote: »

If it were down to me, I'd make all banks partnerships with no limited liability. That would mean in the event of insolvency, partners would be responsible for all liabilities that were unable to be covered by asset sales to the point of selling their home.

Ouch, Gen that's harsh. I can see why you would suggest this, but who would want to be a partner in something like that? Wouldn't it drive investment banking away from London if it couldn't be instigated globally? I do think that banks should be far more accountable for their own risk but the level of knowledge you'd need to be happy with being a partner... Even Nobel laureates may not be comfortable with that.

wolvoman

MegaMiniMouse wrote: »

Any bank failure should be allowed to threaten the security of any other bank, just as any airline failure (for example) will throw the prospects of all airlines into doubt

Can you explain that one? How can an airline failing impact another airline in the way that bank failures can?

wolvoman

Ilya_Ilyich wrote: »

If by 'pay for' you mean 'suffer a reduction in wealth from' then the very wealthy in particular and owners of corporations in general.

You do know most corporations are owned by pension funds don't you? That's pension funds of mostly ordinary people.

Ilya_Ilyich wrote: »

In an economy primarily driven by the public sector, wages can be allocated in a manner that prioritises a minimum 'acceptable' level of net wealth. Thus the X will be 'the consumers'.

So if an economy is 'primarily' driven by the public sector as you describe, what is the incentive for the wealthy and corporations to remain in that economy, when many economies throughout the world will open their arms with much lower tax rates?

wolvoman

[quote=[Deleted User];42351892]I also think their lack of action might have something to do with them getting half of their funding from the financial sector. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/08/tory-funds-half-city-banks-financial-sector?intcmp=239
[/QUOTE]

If you read that properly you'll find that almost all those donations are from the non-banking financial sector.

It's a bit like saying someone is getting lots of brown envelopes from shipbuilders when actually it's from car builders instead.

Generali

vivatifosi wrote: »

Ouch, Gen that's harsh. I can see why you would suggest this, but who would want to be a partner in something like that? Wouldn't it drive investment banking away from London if it couldn't be instigated globally? I do think that banks should be far more accountable for their own risk but the level of knowledge you'd need to be happy with being a partner... Even Nobel laureates may not be comfortable with that.

It's how all accountancy firms were run until the 1990s and how Goldman Sachs was run at the start of the 21st Century.

You would have to instigate it globally or at least in all major markets.

Thrugelmir

wolvoman wrote: »

Can you explain that one? How can an airline failing impact another airline in the way that bank failures can?

National airlines are like the banks. Though not to big, but to important to fail.

ninky_2

Generali wrote: »

It's how all accountancy firms were run until the 1990s and how Goldman Sachs was run at the start of the 21st Century.

You would have to instigate it globally or at least in all major markets.

aren't a lot of issues that we have now to do with the fact that we have a global market and national borders that limit the flow of certain goods and markets but fail or choose not to limit others?

surely the only sensible way forward is to encourage globalisation of all things? and an overseeing global rule for certain things? i.e. free flow of labour, goods, services etc.

N1AK

grimsalve wrote: »

I just think anyone who goes to a rally, protest, etc. and intentionally covers their face to avoid being recorded on cctv is only doing it for one reason and that's to avoid being brought to justice at a later date (with the cctv proving their wrong-doing). I don't see how this is an infringement of anyone's rights.

I also think that the vast majority of people doing it at the moment have that motivation. My point is "easy cases make bad laws". At the moment, I may protest with my face obscured, if you remove my ability to do so, of course you are restricting my freedom (as I haven't mentioned 'rights' I'm not sure why you refer to them).

I might wish to protest anonymously because:

1. I'm government employed and concerned it could hurt my career.
2. I'm campaigning against something my employer is involved with, thus risking hurting my career.
3. I do not wish for my support to be public knowledge.
4. Protesting may put me at risk (fortunately not an issue in the UK at this moment).

Sometimes you have to accept that the cost of maintaining freedoms, is that some people will misuse them.