observer Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Full marks to Obama: he's taking decisive action to deal with the greedy bankers, who are back to their old ways - he's CUT their salaries by 90% and capped them at $200k pa - pity we can't find such a decisive politician. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Well, it WAS his bankers caused the recession with their gormless and unstable loans that were then passed around to everyone else because nobody thought for an instant that they were that reckless. Never mind Iceland, the US should be coughing up! I like Barack. Can't be easy going through life with the initials BO, can it? But he's done well.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Point is; he's getting a grip of these leaches - sems Gordy doesn't want to upset them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 No, the point is that our bankers made a decision to buy into US loans that they thought were sound, when in fact the US bankers had gone insane and recklessly thrown money at people never in a position to repay, then knowingly sold on the loans and dragged everyone else into their mess, thereby setting off an unprecendented collapse of banks all over the place and triggering a world recession. It's the difference between making a good faith error and deliberately defrauding as many people as you can to cover your own backside. And let's not forget that thousands of individuals now criticising the banking industry made exactly the same error trusting the Iceland banks. Smaller scale, but same thing - it looked good, Iceland had a reputation as safe, but in fact it wasn't sound. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 So our lenders wern't giving mortgage loans to folk, at ridiculous credit terms them; wern't trading in toxic debt? - our lot were just as bad - as Mervyn King has said; we had/have a casino culture in parts of the banking system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 They were dealing in toxic debts that stemmed from the US. They are bankers, not psychics. As for casino element - what the hell is he talking about? The entire Stock Exchange, ERM and any other kind of trading has ALWAYS been based on gambling money on what you GUESS is going to bring a profit. Pick wrong, you lose your money. It's no different to backing horses. What a stunning insight from our leading financial light!! Is he your brother, Obs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 LP is right on this Good posts LP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 And I've not mentioned willies even once...... oh damn! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Again, your entering your dreamworld LP: Mervyn King has just finished suggesting that the casino element of "investment" banking should be cast adrift from "commercial" banking to provide a reliable manager of our savings. The mortgage industry in THIS COUNTRY were doing exactly the same thing as the US sub-prime market - IE, lending money to folk who couldn't afford to pay it back. As for the stock exchange, WOW, eureka, you've discovered that it's no more than a glorified bookies! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 Look, Obs, when you put your money in any bank to earn interest, they take it and invest it in something that they think will pay more than they have promised you. If they are right, they make money. If they are wrong, you lose yours too. There's no branch of banking that doesn't do that. The money in your current account, paying you nothing, is also invested on a banker's hunch to make them money. They don't keep it in a brown envelope in the drawer for you. Why do you think there's a limit on the amount you're guaranteed to get back in the event of collapse? And for the last time, there are bad loans everywhere, but the sheer number and stupidity of the US ones is what toppled the whole system. Our bankers are not perfect, but they are not equally bad or anywhere near it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 Well King is only the Director of the Bank of England - so no doubt not up to your standard! Commercial Banking is based on a more cautious investment of loans - this wasn't the case with the credit boom - hence the collapse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 Yeah, King is Head of the Bankers and tasked with restoring confidence in the industry...... is he really going to come out and say that no placement of money in any bank is 100% guaranteed safe? How come you believe this one and think all the others should be marched outside and shot? What does he earn? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 Cos he made sense, I realise that's a difficult concept for you LP! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 Of course he made flaming sense. He's desperately trying to stabilise an industry that has relied for years on the fact that people didn't realise what bankers were doing with their money! Now we all know there's a risk, he's got to find a way to reassure us - and he's using the normal tactic - admit to some fault and say you're dealing with it. "Some bankers have been reckless, so we're separating them from the others who are more sensible and you needn't worry". Yes, indeed, but that does NOT say there's any risk-free banking or indeed mean there ever will be. He's not lying, but he's using misdirection, as conjurers do when they wave the hanky to your left so you don't see them pocket the coins to your right!! Surprised at you falling for it, Obs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 Full marks to Obama: he's taking decisive action to deal with the greedy bankers, who are back to their old ways - he's CUT their salaries by 90% and capped them at $200k pa - pity we can't find such a decisive politician. Ah but as I understand it only the banks that the US Government have supported, the others are free to pay what they want...and no doubt those bankers who feel hard done to by being capped will be applying to join the uncapped banks.......either in the US or elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 Well if the Government didn't put money into a bank, then they can't control it, can they? It's only where the bankers' stupidity had to be bailed out by Mr & Mrs American taxpayer that he has the right to insist that the money doesn't go straight out again in the pockets of the problems! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 Think Govs are in a position to tax any windfall profit, including obscene bonus payments? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted October 24, 2009 Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 Dunno, but you can only insist on capped salaries and bonuses if you are a shareholder..... hence only the banks where the Gov bought in. Very sensible way of penalising the guilty without hassling the innocent, and it avoids mucking about drafting legislation and waiting for it to be ratified. I like his approach!! 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.