Bazj Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 Personally I don't give a fig how much they pay the bankers after hearing that some Musslim was fined ?50.00 for burning poppies on rememberance day.......and according to one newspaper, on the same day a soldier who had been injured by enemy fire in Afghanistan was fined ?60.00 on the same day for a parking offence. This country really has gone bloody mad...... and it really is the country of appeasing foreigners, crimals, pikeys and just about anyone else who doesn't want to toe the line. These Musslims who are doing this nonsense should be deported.... and if they are born here, they should be deported to whatever country their fathers or grandfathers came from as they have no respect for our country and have no rights to be here. Sod the bankers; they will pay their dues in due course Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 Most of the banks, including Barclays, didn't receive any bailout money from the taxpayer so the only people with any reason to winge about the bonuses are the shareholders and customers of the banks in question. And if they don't like the way the banks run their business they know what they can do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 What - do a Ken Dodd and put it under the mattress?! There is no "choice", as they're now so big, there is fewer of them and they operate like cartels anyway. There was a time when one Bank was owned by it's customers - but that was before they became Masters of the uNIVERSE! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 Agreed Obs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 If you don't like any of the banks Obs, why don't you start your own up and run it on your "ethical" grounds. You never know you might end up making a profit you can donate voluntarily to the country Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 Don't the coop already run a bank on ethical grounds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 IF we're to have "competition" then break up the monopolies. IF you want institutions commited to the national rather than self interest, nationalise them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 Don't the coop already run a bank on ethical grounds but they would still reposses your house if you didn't pay your mortgage!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 IF we're to have "competition" then break up the monopolies. IF you want institutions commited to the national rather than self interest, nationalise them. Typical socialist reaction to everything - nationalisation. Proven to fail every time If you don't like banking with the big boys then don't. Simple solution. But you would much rather force your solution (nationalisation) on everyone whether they want it or not. Pathetic in my opinion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 Nowhere have I said nationalise, I said break them up. Try reading Asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 IF we're to have "competition" then break up the monopolies. IF you want institutions commited to the national rather than self interest, nationalise them. I was talking about this LtKije. Maybe YOU should try reading Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 Who should try reading??? Asperity was quoting your mate obs. Asperity, sadly neither version works. Not seen the news lately, but shouldn't the bailed out banks be paying the taxpayers back before paying out bonuses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 Break the banks up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 Do you realise how absurd your criticism of "nationalisation" is Asp; given that two of these paragons of private enterprise have had to be salvaged by the taxpayer (in effect -nationalised) cos they FAILED. And as long as they remain too big to be allowed to fail, they will continue their high risk, big bonus antics, knowing they are immune from market sanctions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 Do you realise how absurd your criticism of "nationalisation" is Asp; given that two of these paragons of private enterprise have had to be salvaged by the taxpayer (in effect -nationalised) cos they FAILED. And as long as they remain too big to be allowed to fail, they will continue their high risk, big bonus antics, knowing they are immune from market sanctions. These paragons (your description not mine) did NOT have to be salvaged by the taxpayer. They could (and in my opinion, should) have been allowed to fail. The pieces would have been picked up by the other banks who, obviously by all the money they have available for bonuses, could easily afford it. Unfortunately the idiot Prudence Brown who was the architect of the financial problems (he was in charge for 10 long years) decided for political reasons to spend our money to try and salvage his reputation. Nationalisation has never worked anywhere in the world. You only have to loook at the nationalised coal industry. Did they have the national interest in mind when they caused chaos in the Heath years? No just the miners own self interest, the same as you are accusing the bankers of. Even the communist countries gave up on nationalisation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 Even the communist countries gave up on nationalisation And now Russia is a corrupt, autocratic kleptocracy centred on the leadership of Vladimir Putin, in which officials, oligarchs and organised crime are bound together to create a "virtual mafia state", Hardly an improvement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 Asp get your head out of the sand, it was global no banks had any money. Banks were propped up all over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 But at least the people don't have to wait 12 months for permission to buy a fridge any more Wolfie. And what you are saying has nothing to do with nationalisation in any case Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 Asp get your head out of the sand, it was global no banks had any money. Banks were propped up all over. Barclays and HSBC to name two managed to get through without any public money. You're the ostrich Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 Well you make it sound like giving up on nationalisation can only be an improvement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 Barclays narrowly escaped having to take money off the government, but they certainly did not have any money to buy other banks. You're an ostrich Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 Barclays have no money? And you're the one complaining about them paying their executives ?millions (not taxpayers money). Talk sense for once in your sorry life Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 They used unpaid tax money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 They used unpaid tax money. And now you have taken leave of reality Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 Barclays and HSBC to name two managed to get through without any public money. You're the ostrich These paragons (your description not mine) did NOT have to be salvaged by the taxpayer. They could (and in my opinion, should) have been allowed to fail. The pieces would have been picked up by the other banks When the banks were failing, Barclays narrowly escaped having to take money off the government, they certainly did not have any money to buy other banks along with their debt, Do you no of any bank that was cash liquid asp during those turbulent times that would have had the cash to bail out the capitalist system Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.