Why are anarchists targeting HSBC?

[Deleted User]

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The banks which behaved irresponsibly have either gone bust, or are currently in the processed of being downsized and wound up. A process which take a number of years.

Wrong very few banks actually went bust. Others that were about to go bust were bailed out and didn't as a result. The others that hadn't reached the brink at the time would have done had the others failed. It was a potential failure of the whole system. All the banks were bailed out directly or indirectly.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The implementation of Basle 111 to regulate the banks in a tougher manner has been pushed back to 2018. Why? As the G20 recognised that the global financial system could not cope with both the reduction in individual country deficits and implementation of higher capital reserves on the banks concurrently. As the banks themselves are amongst the major buyers of Government debt. The net result being that change will take time so as not to cause further difficulties.

Our definitions of tough are clearly very different.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

I am not pro a large bonus culture. But do accept the fact that the "banks" make a sizable contribution to the UK economy. So better to fight for better regulation etc than not have them based in the UK at all.

Utter rubbish.The tax and jobs created are massively outweighed by the massive damage they have caused through their greed and stupidity. Less and less people are buying this BS for good reason. Has anything the banks have done worth:-

the millions of jobs lost?
the debt the country is in?
the otherwise healthy businesses that pay decent proportions of tax that are struggling or failing due to the very sudden reduction in lending they have had to adjust to?

Thrugelmir wrote: »

As for politics suggest you have a more open mind. Ed Balls received more in donations from bankers than the trade unions to fight his leadership campaign. The previous administration was very much in bed with the bankers, both as friends and advisors.

Another one of your posts that's patronising and offensive but lacking in common sense.

That they use other parties in a similar way only highlights the problem.

The fact that they have hedged their bets by buying out more than one is, sadly, not surprising.

This bribery/funding has paid off very well for them unfortunately. I'd like to see a party in power that represents the electorate not the highest bidder. So much for democracy.

The fact that you think buying more than one party's favours somehow makes things right speaks volumes about you.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Fred Godwin was very much involved from 1999 with the New Deal programme, later of course to be knighted. Perhaps something to do with the £3 billion of Corporation tax paid by RBS.[

I haven't checked out the number but assuming it is correct it is pathetically small in relation to the damage that one bank alone has caused.

ILW

[quote=[Deleted User];42471022]Wrong very few banks actually went bust. Others that were about to go bust were bailed out and didn't as a result. The others that hadn't reached the brink at the time would have done had the others failed. It was a potential failure of the whole system. All the banks were bailed out directly or indirectly.



Our definitions of tough are clearly very different.



Utter rubbish.The tax and jobs created are massively outweighed by the massive damage they have caused through their greed and stupidity. Less and less people are buying this BS for good reason. Has anything the banks have done worth:-

the millions of jobs lost?
the debt the country is in?
the otherwise healthy businesses that pay decent proportions of tax that are struggling or failing due to the very sudden reduction in lending they have had to adjust to?



Another one of your posts that's patronising and offensive but lacking in common sense.

That they use other parties in a similar way only highlights the problem.

The fact that they have hedged their bets by buying out more than one is, sadly, not surprising.

This bribery/funding has paid off very well for them unfortunately. I'd like to see a party in power that represents the electorate not the highest bidder. So much for democracy.

The fact that you think buying more than one party's favours somehow makes things right speaks volumes about you.



I haven't checked out the number but assuming it is correct it is pathetically small in relation to the damage that one bank alone has caused.[/QUOTE]


I am beginning to get the impression that you don't like banks very much.

[Deleted User]

ILW wrote: »

I am beginning to get the impression that you don't like banks very much.

What an outstanding insight you have. Despite being one of their apologists you claim not to work for one. If this is actually true, I think you have missed your calling, with your level of intelligence you would be well suited to the role.

I've realised from your posts you are not prepared to back up your pro-bank views with any substance. You are not capable of responding to reasoned debate. Instead you can only give superficial commentary.

ILW

[quote=[Deleted User];42473754]What an outstanding insight you have. Despite being one of their apologists you claim not to work for one. If this is actually true, I think you have missed your calling, with your level of intelligence you would be well suited to the role.

I've realised from your posts you are not prepared to back up your pro-bank views with any substance. You are not capable of responding to reasoned debate. Instead you can only give superficial commentary.[/QUOTE]

I am more than happy to respond to one point at a time, but general rant along the lines of "the banks have cost millions of jobs and destroyed the economy and they are all corrupt and paying bribes to the politicians" is not possible to reply to. When I have tried to answer individual issues, you have complained that I am failing to look at the whole picture.
I am not saying the banks are, or were perfect, but there is a lot more to the current problems than the banking sector alone.
I would suggest that gross overspending over the last decade or so was the true cause and the bank failures more of a symptom.

[Deleted User]

ILW wrote: »

I am more than happy to respond to one point at a time, but general rant along the lines of "the banks have cost millions of jobs and destroyed the economy and they are all corrupt and paying bribes to the politicians" is not possible to reply to. When I have tried to answer individual issues, you have complained that I am failing to look at the whole picture.
I am not saying the banks are, or were perfect, but there is a lot more to the current problems than the banking sector alone.

This doesn't appear to be consistent with your previous posts on this thread.

ILW wrote: »

I would suggest that gross overspending over the last decade or so was the true cause and the bank failures more of a symptom.

Would that over-spending have been done on credit by any chance? Who provided that then?

What about their trading of dodgy derivatives/insurance products?
It was their investment arms that failed in the most spectacular way due to the people who work there's incompetence.

Thrugelmir

[quote=[Deleted User];42471022]
Another one of your posts that's patronising and offensive but lacking in common sense.
[/QUOTE]

The facts are public knowledge. So perhaps you should at least research and read up on topics thoroughly before making a personal comment.

I made the comment, not politically, but to illustrate that the world isn't black and white.

Your constant rant of millions of have directly lost their jobs to the financial crisis being a prime example of an ill informed view.

[Deleted User]

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The facts are public knowledge. So perhaps you should at least research and read up on topics thoroughly before making a personal comment.

Every negative about the banks I have stated is supported by information such as links to mainstream press articles. Your posts are the ones that are often tangential to the case presented (and reality) and rarely supported with anything other than your opinion.

With regards to personal remarks about you, I stand by them, they are based on what you have posted. If you can't handle personal criticism then maybe you shouldn't have made comments such as 'suggest you have a more open mind' which is personal, judgmental and wrong.

I made the comment, not politically, but to illustrate that the world isn't black and white.

Your comment in defense of the banks using party donations to gain concessions was to mention another example of the same thing. The only difference was that it was Labour not the Conservatives. IF it wasn't politically motivated then it was irrelevant or did you intend to agree with me on that one? Your reply quoted above doesn't apply to either scenario.

Your constant rant of millions of have directly lost their jobs to the financial crisis being a prime example of an ill informed view.

So you see no connection between the banks having ruined the economy and the massive number of job loses? Was it all just a random coincidence in your opinion?

ILW

[quote=[Deleted User];42492426]
So you see no connection between the banks having ruined the economy and the massive number of job loses? Was it all just a random coincidence in your opinion?[/QUOTE]

The economy was going to crash anyway at some point. It always does at the end of a boom. !0 years of the country spending way more than it earned was only ever going to end in grief. You cannot take on a million or so extra public servants and expect the cash to come from nowhere.

[Deleted User]

ILW wrote: »

The economy was going to crash anyway at some point. It always does at the end of a boom. !0 years of the country spending way more than it earned was only ever going to end in grief. You cannot take on a million or so extra public servants and expect the cash to come from nowhere.

Not all of the job loses were in the public sector. Most of the job loses in the first years of the credit crunch were from the private sector.

While it is true that the economy goes in cycles this credit crunch is the most serious financial disaster since the 1920s (another massive failure of the banksters) and its impact has been far worse than your average recession. The banks and their staff are responsible for this and it is only one of the many valid reasons why so many people have nothing but contempt for the people who work for the banks.

Graham_Devon

[quote=[Deleted User];42473754]What an outstanding insight you have. Despite being one of their apologists you claim not to work for one. If this is actually true, I think you have missed your calling, with your level of intelligence you would be well suited to the role.

I've realised from your posts you are not prepared to back up your pro-bank views with any substance. You are not capable of responding to reasoned debate. Instead you can only give superficial commentary.[/QUOTE]

I like that definition of irony. Ta very much.