Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
observer

Money back?

Recommended Posts

No doubt the Banks that were baled out will be privatised again sooner or later; as a tax-payer, what do you think should be a fair return on your investment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want all my money back with interest. Will I get it? Was that a porcine Boeing 747 just flew past? As I said at the time no taxpayers money should have been used to bail out the banks. Now we see the consequences of not listening to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think the arguement from ALL politicians at the time Asp, was that the Banks "were too big to fail";  and it seems since, the Bankers have been "too big to punish".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because they are politicians Obs, I think we can be fairly certain they were wrong at the time, and wrong now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They were wrong to allow the Banks to get "too big to fail" in the first place - Brown had the opportunity to regulate the casino antics of the Banks, but didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I seem to remember you were in favour of a taxpayer bailout at the time, please feel free to correct me if I've misremembered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So just when did the banks become to big to fail Obs?, Yes you can blame Labour for not regulating, But I would say the banks had become to big to fail under the Tories, Both turned a blind eye to the banks, as they were both getting revenue from the banks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that the banks were not too big to fail, it was just a government excuse for throwing money at the problem as usual (after all it isn't their money is it? They can use however much of it as they want can't they).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Successive Governments under Thatcher then Brown, failed to regulate the financial sector, as it was supplying £billions in tax to HMRC, that's why they didn't touch it, and as Osbourne's futile trip to Brussels shows, they still don't want to touch it.  With high street Banks gambling saver's money through their investment (casino banking) arms, it was necessary to safeguard the interests of ordinary savers by saving the Banks. Now, it's on Government to split the two types of operation, make the Banks smaller, get a grip on the greed of the bonus culture and, assuming they do eventually re-privatise them, ensure that the tax-payer makes a profit on it's investment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when the last government spent our money buying the banks why didn't they sort all this out at the same time? Beyond their meagre brain power? Or just spending our money in the most inefficient manner possible as usual? Why change the habits of a lifetime. And you still think it was the right thing to do, bailing out the banks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The government had no choice, if they didn't how would people be paid and what would their wages be paid into?

 

 things were that bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they had a choice! It wasn't the whole banking system that failed just a part of it. The day to day running of the banking system wouldn't have been affected. There are many financial experts who agree that the bailout was wrong (just google it yourself Lt Kije I can't be arsed with your silly games any more). Brown is and was an incompetent assisted by other incompetents like Balls and Millipede who will continue to work for the destruction of the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So where would people who bank with Nat West ,RBS and the other banks, lets just say most of the banks had their wages paid into, had who would have paid their direct debits, on the day they went under and the days after. 

 

The Government?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The banks you mention didn't "go under". They continued to trade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But they would have been taken over by other banks, that is how a free market system works, or would do if a ham fisted government didn't step in and waste billions of pounds of taxpayers money and put the nation in debt for the next century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What other banks Asp, Name a bank big enough that was not in a mess itself to buy out all the banks that were in trouble, All the American banks were in trouble and all the European banks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure there's more than enough equity in the world to sort out a little financial difficulty like this. After all aren't you one of the people forever moaning about bankers bonuses? Money doesn't grow on trees so where has that all come from? The world is not broke, there is just imbalance which would be sorted by natural (market) forces if only government would butt out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LITTLE!!!!!!!!!!

 

This little mess as you say is yet to be resolved, So who would have bought the banks out along with their dept except the governments, As it was not just the UK government that  propped up the banks.

 

And you are yet to say who would have paid all the direct debits, standing orders ect, if you had your way and Nat West and RBS ect had disappeared.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems strange to me that the very same people who bemoan the fact that a small percentage of people own the highest prcentage of the wealth (in the UK the top 5% hold 46% and the bottom 50% hold just 10%) are cheering the fact that the government is supporting, and indeed increasing, the wealth gap by bailing out the banks which are, in the main, owned by those same top wealthy people. And using the taxes paid by the less wealthy to do it just to add insult to injury. The banks are not there to "lead a recovery" they are there to make profits for their shareholders and seem to be doing that exceedingly well at the moment. The banks assets are for the most part only on paper and, if they hadn't been bailed out by the taxpayer, they would have been forced to sell these assets and then the real value of these paper assets would have been revealed to the world and a fire sale ensue. As it is the banks are now saying that governments (starting with Greece but this will spread) must sell off their assets to reduce their debts. And who has the money to buy these assets at fire sale prices? Why, those self same banks that are now flush with taxpayers' money. The UK government has given the banks £1.4 Trillion and the banks have done nothing with it to help in any recovery. It would have made more sense to give us all £20,000 each to spend as we wish. It would still have ended up largely with the banks but at least it would have produced £1.4 Trillion worth of economic activity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As previously discussed Asp, their was no choice, not ideal but their was nothing else to be done. And your idea was a non starter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In your opinion, but not in the opinion of many others. And which idea are you crediting me with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...