Banks to face stricter supervision

debtistheft

Kohoutek wrote: »

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

bonuses for already wealthy bankers.

Kohoutek

debtistheft wrote: »

bonuses for already wealthy bankers.

For the purposes of argument, let's assume you're correct. What happens if those wealthy bankers use the money to buy shares and corporate bonds, or do anything with the money that involves using it the economy (i.e. anything except burying it in the ground)? I guess your whole argument that the existence of mortgage debt prevents companies raising money on capital markets becomes invalid...

Jimmy_31

julieq wrote: »

So if we remove banks, who lends to businesses?

You seem to be complaining because they exist, and in the next breath complaining about what they do.

In a capitalist economy anyone complaining about banks is like a fish complaining about water being wet.

Id rather just go to the BOE if i needed a loan as i hear they offer VERY competitive rates of interest.

[Deleted User]

julieq wrote: »

So if we remove banks, who lends to businesses?

You seem to be complaining because they exist, and in the next breath complaining about what they do.

I missed this when you posted it but have just seen Jimmy's reply.

The point that you miss is not only have we bailed them out but we also give huge concessions to the banks to have them based here.

The reason given by the politicians whose parties they pay large amounts of money to is that allegedly overall they're good for our economy. The fact is they are not. We would have been better offer bypassing the broken banks and doing it directly.

The truth is that contrary to the image they project the manner in which they do business is not beneficial to the country. The way they are trying to use any excuse possible to repair themselves quicker at the further expense of those that bailed them out by calling in loans allegedly given in good faith so they can clawback personal assets even when there have been no defaults is disgusting.

Especially when protecting business lending and hence jobs is the biggest reason to prop up our current crop of sleazy banks and their incompetent and in too many cases fraudulent staff.

I'm amazed there hasn't been more outcry against the banks and our politicians selling out to them.

In a capitalist economy anyone complaining about banks is like a fish complaining about water being wet.

We do not have capitalism, at least not as far as the banks are concerned. If we did they would have failed totally and their incompetent staff who like to pretend that economics is akin to a science would be unemployed.

debtistheft

Kohoutek wrote: »

For the purposes of argument, let's assume you're correct. What happens if those wealthy bankers use the money to buy shares and corporate bonds, or do anything with the money that involves using it the economy (i.e. anything except burying it in the ground)? I guess your whole argument that the existence of mortgage debt prevents companies raising money on capital markets becomes invalid...

They don't, its well known that they buy houses in London and push up prices outrageously.

julieq

OK, so name me one country that's managed to create a viable economy without banks.

It's crazy this bank bashing, really it is. It's really a triumph of opinionated pub bore ignorance over truth. In the same breath, bank bashers are calling for less lending (because lending was "too lax"), and more lending (because banks are calling in loans under pressure from a political system over influenced by the call for restrictive lending and more prudence).

Get it straight in your own head please. Which do you want? If you want less lending, be prepared for a slower economy and rising unemployment, because that is what you are explicitly asking for. If you want more lending, then you need banks to do it.

Banks are good for the economy, end of. You can see that very obviously when you see what happens when you restrict their capacity to lend. They generate enormous amounts of tax and they allow commerce to operate. If banks are driven out of the UK by this insane and ill informed bank bashing, we'll soon see precisely how important they are to us.

But that really isn't the issue is it? People are seeing bankers earning bonuses, they see themselves with falling living standards, and they can't disconnect their jealousy circuits to allow them to understand that life and particularly remuneration isn't "fair" (whatever that means). And they'll quite gladly wish the economy to crash and burn so they feel better about that. Newsflash: if bankers in the publically owned banks get bonuses it's because they're doing well. Who benefits if they're doing well? We do.

Listen, I'd love to be on a banker bonus. I chose a different career path and I've done OK for myself. I see people in society far less valuable than bankers receive far more. Life isn't fair. Live with it.

[Deleted User]

julieq wrote: »

OK, so name me one country that's managed to create a viable economy without banks.

There is unlikely to be one. This is another on of your typical rhetorical questions asked in response to something someone hasn't actually said.

It's crazy this bank bashing, really it is. It's really a triumph of opinionated pub bore ignorance over truth. In the same breath, bank bashers are calling for less lending (because lending was "too lax"), and more lending (because banks are calling in loans under pressure from a political system over influenced by the call for restrictive lending and more prudence).

Opinionated pub bore? With your frequent use of phrases such as 'end of' and 'newsflash' which one of us do you think would fit in better with a bunch of Chavs in a pub?

The banking crisis has had a massive effect on our economy and people's jobs and livelihoods. It's not a trivial matter, the fact that the people that created it were not punished for the damage they caused to both their own companies and the economy adds insult to injury. Are you so naive as to think that people will just forget this?

Get it straight in your own head please. Which do you want? If you want less lending, be prepared for a slower economy and rising unemployment, because that is what you are explicitly asking for. If you want more lending, then you need banks to do it.

Get this straight in your own head. Nobody is after a situation where there are no banks to lend. We'd just like them to be responsible for their own actions. Not get bailed out and continue to conduct themselves in a way that goes against anything that could remotely be described as good faith.

Banks are good for the economy, end of. You can see that very obviously when you see what happens when you restrict their capacity to lend. They generate enormous amounts of tax and they allow commerce to operate. If banks are driven out of the UK by this insane and ill informed bank bashing, we'll soon see precisely how important they are to us.

Are they? When you take into account the damage they have caused recently which is currently being made worse by their crude attempts to repair their balance sheets by using flimsy excuses to not honour existing agreements when they know they can go after personal assets and recover the full loan amounts before the end of loan's term.

But that really isn't the issue is it? People are seeing bankers earning bonuses, they see themselves with falling living standards, and they can't disconnect their jealousy circuits to allow them to understand that life and particularly remuneration isn't "fair" (whatever that means).

If that's aimed at me I have actually benefited personally from the current situation. I have no jealousy towards bankers. What I have is anger at their reprehensible behavior. That their staff then come on here and give us a further display of their arrogance and lack of remorse (or worse denial) further fills me with hatred.

And they'll quite gladly wish the economy to crash and burn so they feel better about that.

That they caused the economy to crash and burn is the very thing that angers me.

Newsflash: if bankers in the publically owned banks get bonuses it's because they're doing well. Who benefits if they're doing well? We do.

How could they fail to do well? Everything plummeted after they wrecked the western world's economies. Governments all over the world pumped trillions into propping things up. There is only one predicable trend from that point.

Had they not been bailed out many of them would not have jobs let alone bonuses.

Listen, I'd love to be on a banker bonus. I chose a different career path and I've done OK for myself. I see people in society far less valuable than bankers receive far more. Life isn't fair. Live with it.

Life isn't always fair but sometimes it is. I hope if they get to pay the price for their actions they accept it, however I doubt they will.