Hard to explain how bad economic crisis is, says Cable

[Deleted User]

chucky wrote: »

seeing that the average bank employees salary is somewhere between £40k and £60k, i'm not sure how or why bank employees should be punished.

Regrettably, as the greater proportion of my London properties are in the Canary Wharf/IOD area I have several of these people as tenants. I am well aware that they are not all multi-millionaires. That is not the issue.

My anger is not based on their earnings, its what they have done to the country (and others for that matter) through their lack of responsibility.

chucky

[quote=[Deleted User];43854888]Regrettably, as the greater proportion of my London properties are in the Canary Wharf/IOD area I have several of these people as tenants. I am well aware that they are not all multi-millionaires. That is not the issue.

My anger is not based on their earnings, its what they have done to the country (and others for that matter) through their lack of responsibility.[/QUOTE]
i agree with you but they are only doing their job.

the scope of their job is what they do within the financial regulations.

if you owned a cake shop would you stop selling cakes to a fat person?

ILW

chucky wrote: »

i agree with you but they are only doing their job.

the scope of their job is what they do within the financial regulations.

if you owned a cake shop would you stop selling cakes to a fat person?

You summed it up better than I have managed to.

[Deleted User]

chucky wrote: »

i agree with you but they are only doing their job.

the scope of their job is what they do within the financial regulations.

if you owned a cake shop would you stop selling cakes to a fat person?

In your analogy of selling fat people cakes, that person is making their own choice and accepting a personal risk.

This is not comparable to taking no personal risk, but making gains on unrealistic deals which they will have know full well would blow up in the company's and ultimately the tax payers faces.

Calling in healthy and perfectly serviced loans given allegedly in good faith is also inexcusable.

[Deleted User]

ILW wrote: »

You summed it up better than I have managed to.

lol, if you find anyone who is worse than yourself at summing things up, please, give kindly.

chucky

[quote=[Deleted User];43855322]In your analogy of selling fat people cakes, that person is making their own choice and accepting a personal risk.

This is not comparable to taking no personal risk, but making gains on unrealistic deals which they will have know full well would blow up in the company's and ultimately the tax payers faces.

Calling in healthy and perfectly serviced loans given allegedly in good faith is also inexcusable.[/QUOTE]
but the banks were sellers of these services and loans.

them being sellers, there must have been buyers. it was the buyers choice to enter into these deals.

no investment is risk free, not even savings accounts, otherwise there wouldn't be the £85k savings guarantee.

no one anywhere even the armchair economists on here expected the scope of the crisis to go as far as affect the liquidity of major governments. so blaming a bank employee who was doing their job is a bit harsh.

ILW

[quote=[Deleted User];43855382]lol, if you find anyone who is worse than yourself at summing things up, please, give kindly.[/QUOTE]

Not sure if that is an insult or not.

[Deleted User]

chucky wrote: »

but the banks were sellers of these services and loans.

them being sellers, there must have been buyers. it was the buyers choice to enter into these deals.

no investment is risk free, not even savings accounts, otherwise there wouldn't be the £85k savings guarantee.

no one anywhere even the armchair economists on here expected the scope of the crisis to go as far as affect the liquidity of major governments. so blaming a bank employee who was doing their job is a bit harsh.

That no investment is risk free is a well known fact. That's why some responsibility is required by management and traders. Acting responsibly would be 'doing their job' properly.

The fact is that these people had a bonus scheme that meant they could make dodgy deals knowing that they would get paid before TSHTF. The company would take the hit except of course they were well known to be 'too big to fail' so we took the hit.

I find it interesting that they offered loans with the same terms as mortgages claiming that these are faster and easier to set up when asked for commercial mortgages. I doubt that the fact that these loans could be called in despite there having been no default in payments wasn't far from the front of their minds at the time.

In short they deserve to be punished and making underhand deals with politicians to limit the ability of the public to do this legally makes me hope that in time that comes back to bite them.

ILW

You have suggested punishment again. How could it be done and for what offence?

[Deleted User]

ILW wrote: »

Not sure if that is an insult or not.

There's a surprise Maybe someone with basic cognitive ability and a lot of patience could explain it to you.