We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Campaign for debt free money, stable house prices, pension still worth something...
Comments
-
If you want to compare the cost and benefits of a given sector, then of course you need to consider both sides of the equation.
The cost of £133bn is a fraction of what the bank bailouts cost the economy as a whole. That's before we get on to moral hazard and the cost of the future bailouts that will eventuate as a result.
You want to look at the whole of the revenue side (not risk adjusted) and ignore the largest parts of the cost side. If you do that then the bank bailouts are a fantastic idea.
The fact is that bank executives have admitted to countless frauds, aided and abetted by hundreds of bank managers. So why have these people been allowed to use shareholders' money, largely earned off the back of bailouts paid for by ordinary taxpayers, to escape gaol? It's a disgrace.0 -
Imagine.... A manifesto for the up coming general election..
Banking reform
Out of EU
Controlled immigration
Reform NHS
Nationalise energy firms
Fix the pot holes in roads
Petrol price control
House of Commons reform, more accountability and recall for sacking
Less meddling with the education system
Less red tape for small business
More house building
More pension reform
What's the bet that UKIP add some or all of these to their manifesto?....
Would these pledges win?Peace.0 -
TickersPlaysPop wrote: »Imagine.... A manifesto for the up coming general election..
Banking reform
Out of EU
Controlled immigration
Reform NHS
Nationalise energy firms
Fix the pot holes in roads
Petrol price control
House of Commons reform, more accountability and recall for sacking
Less meddling with the education system
Less red tape for small business
More house building
More pension reform
What's the bet that UKIP add some or all of these to their manifesto?....
Would these pledges win?
The problem enacting these changes is that you get less GDP and more spending. That's a bad combination:
Banking reform - Less GDP (probably)
Out of EU - Much less GDP
Controlled immigration - Less GDP
Reform NHS - More spending (probably)
Nationalise energy firms - Less GDP + more spending
Fix the pot holes in roads - more spending
Petrol price control - more spending + less GDP
House of Commons reform, more accountability and recall for sacking - immaterial financially
Less meddling with the education system - less spending
Less red tape for small business - more GDP + less spending (easier said than done though)
More house building - more GDP
More pension reform - more spending (probably)
Empty promises definitely won't win you a second term.
0 -
The fact is that bank executives have admitted to countless frauds.
The problem for this argument, of course, is that you just made that bit up, and then stuck "The fact is" in front of it.
In most cases of alleged wrongdoing, people were acting in line with the regulator's guidance, and only turned out to be doing "wrong" after the regulator decided to change the rules.
A mortgage trader in Lehman running too much risk was being reckless, especially as it turns out that the guys at DB, Merrill etc. were doing the same, but there was probably no fraud involved. There was short-termism, greed, poor goal-setting, and lack of oversight, but not any obvious fraud.
Banks understanding that you don't fight the regulator, and accepting fines is not the same as admitting to fraud.0 -
The problem for this argument, of course, is that you just made that bit up, and then stuck "The fact is" in front of it.
In most cases of alleged wrongdoing, people were acting in line with the regulator's guidance, and only turned out to be doing "wrong" after the regulator decided to change the rules.
A mortgage trader in Lehman running too much risk was being reckless, especially as it turns out that the guys at DB, Merrill etc. were doing the same, but there was probably no fraud involved. There was short-termism, greed, poor goal-setting, and lack of oversight, but not any obvious fraud.
Banks understanding that you don't fight the regulator, and accepting fines is not the same as admitting to fraud.
So Goldman Sachs didn't commit fraud? Citibank didn't commit fraud?
Both sold financial products that were deliberately designed to mislead, were fraudulent and have subsequently settled.
In addition there were the Robo-Signers where the banks deliberately lied to the courts to reduce costs.
Then there are the more prosaic things like PPI mis-selling.
If the banks weren't acting fraudulently then they have failed in their fiduciary duty to their owners. You can't use shareholders' money just to make the possibility of gaol go away. Either the bankers have acted illegally in settling or have acted illegally and had to settle. There is no other possible conclusion.0 -
BillJones
Would be very interesting to hear what you think of the posts in reply to your defence of the bankers.....
Are you still defending the banks?.... and if you are a rates trader probably on a salary of more than 100k per yr.... what are you bothering to post here? You must be very busy with 12 hr days and sleeping at the office?Peace.0 -
So Goldman Sachs didn't commit fraud? Citibank didn't commit fraud?
Both sold financial products that were deliberately designed to mislead, were fraudulent and have subsequently settled....
They are both US banks.....In addition there were the Robo-Signers where the banks deliberately lied to the courts to reduce costs....
Again, I think that's a US thing....Then there are the more prosaic things like PPI mis-selling. ...
Ah, now we're bank on home ground....If the banks weren't acting fraudulently then they have failed in their fiduciary duty to their owners. You can't use shareholders' money just to make the possibility of gaol go away. Either the bankers have acted illegally in settling or have acted illegally and had to settle. There is no other possible conclusion.
There was certainly a heap big pile of naughtiness being committed from fiddling LIBOR rates, to downright fradulent balance sheet manipulation, depending on the jurisdiction involved. I'm not that sure that making wide-sweeping generalisations is however, necessarily the way forwards.0 -
The problem for this argument, of course, is that you just made that bit up, and then stuck "The fact is" in front of it.
In most cases of alleged wrongdoing, people were acting in line with the regulator's guidance, and only turned out to be doing "wrong" after the regulator decided to change the rules.
A mortgage trader in Lehman running too much risk was being reckless, especially as it turns out that the guys at DB, Merrill etc. were doing the same, but there was probably no fraud involved. There was short-termism, greed, poor goal-setting, and lack of oversight, but not any obvious fraud.
Banks understanding that you don't fight the regulator, and accepting fines is not the same as admitting to fraud.
And to cap it all. We now get revelations about Barclays "Dark Pool". Where the super rich trade with each other off piste so to speak. Outside of any regulatory exchange.
Jenkins promised so much to clean up the act of Barclays. Yet this happened on his watch. Banking is currently extremely unreputable.
Despite the protests of the French Government. Seems as if there's no defence.
"US authorities will announce early next week that French banking giant BNP Paribas has agreed to pay an $8.9bn (£5.2bn) fine for allegedly violating sanctions rules. "
What's next? Who is going to trust a banker at the current time. When the whole ethos appears to be self centred and socially out of touch.0 -
Thrugelmir wrote: »And to cap it all. We now get revelations about Barclays "Dark Pool". Where the super rich trade with each other off piste so to speak. Outside of any regulatory exchange.
Jenkins promised so much to clean up the act of Barclays. Yet this happened on his watch. Banking is currently extremely unreputable.
Despite the protests of the French Government. Seems as if there's no defence.
"US authorities will announce early next week that French banking giant BNP Paribas has agreed to pay an $8.9bn (£5.2bn) fine for allegedly violating sanctions rules. "
What's next? Who is going to trust a banker at the current time. When the whole ethos appears to be self centred and socially out of touch.
Jenkins has spent his entire career within Barclays
he reached a very senior position before he was appointed CEO
it is inconceivable he didn't know what was going on a Barclays even if he didn't know every single detail.
although his 'words' may tell one story, all his actions show he is an unreconstructed banker.0 -
Jenkins has spent his entire career within Barclays
he reached a very senior position before he was appointed CEO
it is inconceivable he didn't know what was going on a Barclays even if he didn't know every single detail.
although his 'words' may tell one story, all his actions show he is an unreconstructed banker.
Nobody works totally alone in a large Corporation. He'll have his trusted Lieutenants reporting back.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards