Banks to face stricter supervision

Milarky

lemonjelly wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13453242

Although they always should've been blah blah...



Looks good on paper, & making some popular noises. I await the u-turn that will probably happen though...

Yes, my thoughts too. This sounds like Hector* flying a kite (only to roll back, do a bit less regulation and everyone laps up their 'wisdom') or simply raising his own profile. These people are simply not interested in the 'public interest' unless it coincides with their personal enrichment.

*At least he can't be knighted

debtistheft

Conrad wrote: »

You keep avoiding the central question.

Why did the British working classes, fed up with centuries of servitude, set up co - operatives (Building Societies) to enable members to buy thier own brick boxes?

Were they immoral?

Why are you so rooted in the past? Do you really think that the only options are to either have a home owning populace or descend into a third world country? Perhaps if these people had lobbied government for better housing and tenant rights, they would not have needed to help these people get into so much debt in the first place. The solution to bad housing and poverty isnt to encourage people into buying bad housing and lowering themselves into more debt.

I would hardly say that Germany is suffering from not having an economy based in housing debt.

debtistheft

The trade of the petty usurer is hated with most reason:
it makes a profit from currency itself, instead of making it from the process which currency was meant to serve.
Their common characteristic is obviously their sordid avarice.
Aristotle

debtistheft

To take interest for money lent is unjust in itself, because this is to sell what does not exist, and this evidently leads to inequality, which is contrary to justice. Now, money was invented chiefly for the purpose of exchange. Hence, it is by its very nature unlawful to take payment for the use of money lent, which payment is known as interest.
Thomas Aquinas

debtistheft

The Banker is a person who produces nothing of value, slowly, and then more rapidly, gains a death grip over the land, buildings and labor of future generations. The borrowers have become the servants of the lenders and have placed themselves on the economic treadmill of debt. Sir Josiah Stamp, President of the Bank of England in the 1920s, then the second richest man in Britain said, "Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it all back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits."

ninky_2

have to say i agree with the premise that mortgage lending - and consumer credit in general - has created a problem for the majority rather than solve one.

not sure i'm feeling all this fire and brimstone stuff though.

debtistheft

All major religions preach against usury, its probably one of the few things the do agree on. There is therefore a reason for this accord, and certainly if you look on any of the debt forums on the internet or speak to anyone who works for the debt charities or CAB you will learn the missery that debt and moneylending brings to people.

The ones who are arguing against me on another thread have one thing in common too, they have all borrowed and none of them have had a problem paying it back. If they had tasted the misery of debt then perhaps they would look at it in a different way. We should not have to sail our future and our children's future down the river of debt and misery.

ninky_2

debtistheft wrote: »

All major religions preach against usury, its probably one of the few things the do agree on. .

and sodomy. they're not very keen on bum sex either.

debtistheft

I think the Hindu's do, but then what else can you expect from polytheists.

Kohoutek

debtistheft wrote: »

The UK has seen those interest rates in the past without insurrection. Look at my signature and just imagine if that level of debt and those debt repayments were invested in industry in the form of company shares and corporate bonds instead of going to one sector (banking), how much better would our economy be, how much wealthier would we be as a nation?

Where do you think all the money that's received by the banks as debt repayments ultimately goes?