Farewell UK. Breakup inevitable says top civil servant

julieq

Joguest, who exactly do you think benefits from bailing out a bank? Savers or borrowers?

You seem to be suggesting that the bailouts are entirely to sustain house prices in the South East of England, which is palpable nonsense. And low interest rates have nothing at all to do with bank bailouts, except that they tend to make actual accrued losses less likely by providing a general stimulus to the economy.

What on earth this has to do with Scottish Independence is anyone's guess. It seems to be you just riding cluelessly up and down on a hobbyhorse about house prices.

joguest

julieq wrote: »

Joguest, who exactly do you think benefits from bailing out a bank? Savers or borrowers?

You seem to be suggesting that the bailouts are entirely to sustain house prices in the South East of England, which is palpable nonsense. And low interest rates have nothing at all to do with bank bailouts, except that they tend to make actual accrued losses less likely by providing a general stimulus to the economy.

What on earth this has to do with Scottish Independence is anyone's guess. It seems to be you just riding cluelessly up and down on a hobbyhorse about house prices.

Bond-holders, share-holders, employees benefit. Savers' savings are protected by government fiat.

Yes, the bail-outs (both direct and through interest rate slashing) have very obviously prevented house prices falling in the South-East (more than other regions given the region's dependence on the financial services industry).

The bail-outs have resulted in a transfer of wealth from the regions that aren't dependent on financial services to those that are - and very obviously so.

robmatic

joguest wrote: »

Bond-holders, share-holders, employees benefit. Savers' savings are protected by government fiat.

Yes, the bail-outs (both direct and through interest rate slashing) have very obviously prevented house prices falling in the South-East (more than other regions given the region's dependence on the financial services industry).

The bail-outs have resulted in a transfer of wealth from the regions that aren't dependent on financial services to those that are - and very obviously so.

You're just flailing around. If you thought things through you would realise that Edinburgh has proved to the largest direct beneficiary of the bank bailouts, as RBS and LBG are massive employers in that Scottish city.

And the idea that the actions taken to bail out banks had nothing to do with savers' deposits is laughable.

joguest

robmatic wrote: »

You're just flailing around. If you thought things through you would realise that Edinburgh has proved to the largest direct beneficiary of the bank bailouts, as RBS and LBG are massive employers in that Scottish city.

And the idea that the actions taken to bail out banks had nothing to do with savers' deposits is laughable.

It had nothing to do with savers deposits. Can you please explain how a sovereign government can't guarantee savers' deposits?

joguest

There really are some il-informed people on here. I haven't actually said anything controversial or anything that almost any economist wouldn't agree with.

julieq

Well Joguest, the bailouts didn't cost very much as it's turned out, and as they benefitted non borrowers, they had nothing to do with house prices.

But don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant, eh?

So do you want Scottish independence or not?

dtsazza

treliac wrote: »

Can you imagine where we might be heading if there was... no opposition of any worth?

Isn't that the situation we're already in?

Joking aside though, I think that situation would actually be great if it arose in a fully democratic and accountable manner. In that context, the only way that this situation could arise is if the incumbent party was giving the populace what it wanted, and no other party was able to offer policies that were as good.

I'm not saying that's necessarily what we'd have now; but so long as people have the ability to make a choice between freely-runnable alternatives, and keep choosing the best one, what's the problem?

StevieJ

BTW what was the nationality of the two characters behind the authorisation the 'bailout'?:)

pineapple

All this is inconsequential. We will all end up ruled by the EU. This is where the current financial crisis is going. :mad: Wait and see....

A._Badger

joguest wrote: »

No, it's your brain that's failed you.

Slashing interest rates forcibly takes money away from savers and gives it to the borrowers that forced house prices up. How's that different to a tax? When the majority of the population already live as owner-occupiers and decide they don't want any more houses built so they can extract more money from those that want to buy a house, how is that different to 'forcibly' extracting money from other peoples' pockets through democratic taxation?

Why is extracting unearned wealth by holding a monopoly any better/worse than redistributive taxes?

What was democratic about Blair, Brown and Darling taxing the English to feather-bed the Scotts and other bought and paid for voting blocs?

I wouldn't start thumping the 'democracy' tub if you're going to come over all Scottish on us. The democratic deficit in that relationship is factual - unlike your curious belief that low interest rates (remind us who introduced them, by the way?) are in any sense comparable with taxation.