so, this bail out in Cyprus, is actually theft of the savings of so called "rich"

CLAPTON

The_Green_Man wrote: »

Should this silken parachute be extended to those who invest in the stockmarket just before it falls? Should we bail out people who overextend themselves financially with loans and credit cards and houses they can't afford?

What happened to people taking responsibility for their own financial decisions? If these people followed Martin Lewis' advice and spread their wealth across various banks, keeping their deposits in each beneath the guaranteed levels (100k euros across the EU) then they would be fine.

how is people spreading their savings over many different institutions to gain multiple 85,000 units of government guarantee taking responsibility for their own financial decisions?

ruggedtoast

Over on hpc.co.uk they believe this may lead to a new banking crisis in the UK.

They are hopeful!

The_Green_Man_2

CLAPTON wrote: »

how is people spreading their savings over many different institutions to gain multiple 85,000 units of government guarantee taking responsibility for their own financial decisions?

How is it not?

People know how much the guarantee limit is on their savings, people either take responsibility to structure their savings to make them safe within these guaranteed limits or they don't. It's their money.

BobQ

The_White_Horse wrote: »

with over EUR100,000 or EUR200,000 in savings.

sickening.

World - get your money out now!!!!!!

it wouldn't surprise me if the EU started a few wars next - within europe. to keep the people in check. don't want them questioning our great unelected leaders.

What else can they do? If you agree to join the Euro you are giving away soverignty. Even many of his harshest critics give Brown credit for resisting UK joining the Euro. Once you join you have to accept that your nation needs to behave in ways for the greater good.

The only real choice was to allow all the affected banks to go bankrupt meaning that all investments were lost. Had this happened, unless the Cypriot government reneged on the EU backed promise to all savers that the first €100K was protected, small savers would not have lost out.

The net result of this deal is much the same. The surviving banks behave properly and the shareholders, bondholders and large depositors pay the price.

leveller2911

BobQ wrote: »

What else can they do? If you agree to join the Euro you are giving away soverignty. Even many of his harshest critics giove Brown credit for resisting UK joining the Euro. Once you join youi have to accepts that your nation needs to behave in ways for the greater good.

I wonder if anyone mentioned this to the Germans...;)

CLAPTON

The_Green_Man wrote: »

How is it not?

People know how much the guarantee limit is on their savings, people either take responsibility to structure their savings to make them safe within these guaranteed limits or they don't. It's their money.

they are being sensible and smart and I indeed do the same and


but it is the taxpayer that's taking responsibility for the money

The_Green_Man_2

CLAPTON wrote: »

they are being sensible and smart and I indeed do the same and


but it is the taxpayer that's taking responsibility for the money

Yes, so you agree with me that we should have not bailed out the banks with taxpayer money and that the FSA guarantee of £50k should have come into force, with the deposits above that limit, the bondholders and the shareholders taking the hit?

CLAPTON

The_Green_Man wrote: »

Yes, so you agree with me that we should have not bailed out the banks with taxpayer money and that the FSA guarantee of £50k should have come into force, with the deposits above that limit, the bondholders and the shareholders taking the hit?

If we actually let the banks go bankrupt then all people and businesses with deposits/savings would lose their money (except maybe for the first 50k for personal customers).

So it would mean that every business that used the bank for their everyday banking would instantly become insolvent and unable to do business.
So their staff would not be paid.
Their suppliers would not be paid.
Their customers would be reluctant to do business with them.
Their staff would start defaulting on their own debts; mortgages, utility bills etc etc.

If this had applied to RBS, HBOS etc then without government intervention the country would have come to near collapse with literally 10m of millions of people unemployed and unable to pay their way.


So no, I do not support the idea of letting the banks fail until we have multiple much smaller banks where it might be possible but even then the taxpayer would need to bail out the innocent parties.

The_Green_Man_2

CLAPTON wrote: »

If we actually let the banks go bankrupt then all people and businesses with deposits/savings would lose their money (except maybe for the first 50k for personal customers).

So it would mean that every business that used the bank for their everyday banking would instantly become insolvent and unable to do business.
So their staff would not be paid.
Their suppliers would not be paid.
Their customers would be reluctant to do business with them.
Their staff would start defaulting on their own debts; mortgages, utilitie bills etc etc.

If this had applied to RBS, HBOS etc then without government intervention the country would have come to near collapse with literlly 10m of millions of people unable unemployed and unable to pay their way.


So no, I do not support the idea of letting the banks fail until we have multiple much smaller banks where it might be possible but even then the taxpayer would need to bail out the innocent parties.

Do you support the idea of letting any business fail or do we as tax payers prop them all up? Didn't we try that in the 70's and we ended up with wildly inefficient businesses that cost more to produce products that they made by selling them?

If we don't support a large, inefficient company with a failing business model, such as as Woolworth's then...

So their staff would not be paid.
Their suppliers would not be paid.
Their customers would be reluctant to do business with them.
Their staff would start defaulting on their own debts; mortgages, utilitie bills etc etc.

Do you believe that a government would be any better at running a bank than they were running British Leyland? Is that the model of state intervention you want to go with?

GhIFA

The_Green_Man wrote: »

Do you support the idea of letting any business fail or do we as tax payers prop them all up? Didn't we try that in the 70's and we ended up with wildly inefficient businesses that cost more to produce products that they made by selling them?

If we don't support a large, inefficient company with a failing business model, such as as Woolworth's then...

So their staff would not be paid.
Their suppliers would not be paid.
Their customers would be reluctant to do business with them.
Their staff would start defaulting on their own debts; mortgages, utilitie bills etc etc.

Do you believe that a government would be any better at running a bank than they were running British Leyland? Is that the model of state intervention you want to go with?

You don't seem to understand that there is a whole world of difference between the failure of Woolworths and the failure of two banks holding the accounts of millions of customers and businesses.