Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
observer

Money back?

Recommended Posts

Not quite there Asp:  the way they want it to work is as Mervyn King is now suggesting: IE. the taxpayer's bale out the Banks; the Banks are then split into profitable and toxic sections; the profitable sections are then sold for a song to the rich; whilst the toxic debt remains with the tax-payer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there you have it, the result of the government bail out is to make the rich richer (top politicians amongst them so no conflict of interest there /sarc/) and the rest of us continue to pay to prop up the bad banks. So the bail out was a big mistake. Lt Kije you should change your name to Tina :lol: :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite Asp: The consequences of another "Great Depression" were clearly the major factor in this:  IMO the Banks could remain Nationalised (clause iv !) OR IF & when they are sold off, they are sold off as a whole - including their toxic element.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that isn't going to happen is it, because the whole idea of bailing the banks out was to preserve the interests of the rich and powerful, not the taxpayer who is, after all, only there to provide the funds for the bail out. And yet the same people who complain about the wealth gap on here are praising one of the reasons for it widening. You couldn't make it up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another Great Depression would have been worse for the Plebs Asp:  30s - mass unemployment and then a World War, perhaps the only compensation would have been watching the casino bankers jumping from the 12th floor!.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've told you a million times about exaggeration Obs. If the banks had been allowed to fail it would have been the people with the most wealth invested in them - the top 5% you're forever moaning about. The poor, who haven't got much, if anything. invested in the banks would have lost the least (having the least to lose).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"lost the least"?????!   The loss of a small amount to those with "small amounts" has a disproportionate impact on the majority of folk. I doubt the seriously rich folk would be banking in the High Street in any event, so a run on the Banks (like we saw with Northern Rock), wouldn't really affect them. The Government can't even tax them properly (assuming HMRC had the motivation) - as it seems some HMRC officials now employ off-shore accounts to dodge tax!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have a look at the accounts of the FSCS you will see that the money is already in place. It obviously wouldn't work if the funding hadn't been arranged in advance. But I see that you're determined to stick by the government bail out giving the rich money that has been taken from the poor. Anything to try and protect the already tarnished reputation of Gordon Brown the mad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot agree with you that transferring more wealth to the richest people in the country can be construed as "stabilising the situation". More like criminal stupidity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is loads of money out in the wide world just waiting to be spent on cut price financial institutions. There is a big world outside the UK you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you fund a levy of Banks, when they've all gone bust?!

 

The same way you sue a dead DJ.... if there is money involved someone will always work out a way to get some of it!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad you recognise that there is "loads of money out in the wide world" Asp, owned and controlled by "the wealthy few" - perhaps HMRC could eventually locate it. Had they bought into failed Banks, which is extremely unlikely; they would have called in all their loans from borrowers making mortgage owners and small buisinesses bankcrupt, ensuring contagion was widespread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who in the right mind Asp, would have bought a bank, with the dept liabilities they had??????

 

It could only have been a government, How many years since the crisis, and they are still making losses, nobody would have touched them, you are just being pedantic 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... and with all that "toxic debt" too.  Which the private sector will never buy into, hence Mervyn King's suggestion that we sell the profitable bit back, whilst hanging onto the toxic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm glad you recognise that there is "loads of money out in the wide world" Asp, owned and controlled by "the wealthy few" - perhaps HMRC could eventually locate it. Had they bought into failed Banks, which is extremely unlikely; they would have called in all their loans from borrowers making mortgage owners and small buisinesses bankcrupt, ensuring contagion was widespread.

And you are still stuck in your small world mindset. HMRC is only concerned with the taxpayers of the UK, which is only one small country in a huge world. If the price is right ther will be a buyer for anything you want to sell. I didn't say any body would buy INTO failed banks, they would have bought the whole lot at a premium. Of course there would have been losers, but the biggest losers would be the rich that you are always moaning about (but seem keen to protect for some reason). You obviously have given this no thought at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asp, money doesn't require a passport!  HMRC HAS located funds in Swiss Banks and off shore accounts, and has got some tax dues back - alas not enough imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who in the right mind Asp, would have bought a bank, with the dept liabilities they had??????

 

It could only have been a government, How many years since the crisis, and they are still making losses, nobody would have touched them, you are just being pedantic 

There are always buyers for any product so long as the price is right. As it is the only losers are the people who cannot afford it - us, the taxpayers. The bankers aren't suffering, the politicians aren't suffering. The only people who are suffering are exactly the ones Obs mentioned - borrowers, mortgage owners and small businesses and the ones he didn't mention - savers.

Oh, and by the way, your idea that only government has enough money to buy a bank? Actually government doesn't have any money of its own - its the taxpayers money, and who the hell gave them permission to give my money to the richest 5% without any chance of me getting it back with interest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Complete crap Asp, Nobody would have bought the banks with the dept burden they had.

In you uninformed opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×