The Money Thread - Public Bank ownership expands (RBS@70%)

[Hexx]

I actually thought America would've learned about the dangers of unfettered capitalism after the Wall Street Crash in 1929. To leave something as important as the banking system by and large unregulated is bordering on sheer idiocy.

Just read The Guardian's take on the ordeal, interesting stuff.

I have a thought though, and it might be an incorrect one, but surely injecting $700 billion into the economy would completely undervalue the currency? That money would have come from international as well as domestic borrowing, so would we have seen an even weaker dollar if the plan went through?

It's not "injecting" money (well not all of it)

The majority of it was simply changing "toxic" "illiquid" assets for more liquid cash assets - I don't know what affect that would have on the value of the dollar...I think it was decrease in value slightly, but no where near as much if they just went "It's ok! We've just printed a new $700billion dollars worth of notes"

[Cal]

Get over youself and **** off.

What a funny little person you are, Hexx. You must be so intellectually barren to have to resort to so many vitriolic insults, quite so often. You disgrace only yourself. And stop acting like you are some kind of financial guru, Hexx (albeit a third-rate one). It's very embarrassing and actually quite comical. Who was it said 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing..?' The way you've been behaving in these financial threads is a more than adequate illustration of just such an anecdote.

To claim my views are contradictory is to wilfully ignore the consistency of my views throughout them all. To say I'm not in favour of bailing out failed financiers is not to say I object to helping the REAL victims, however imperfect the eventual solutions employed. The problem with just about every bail-out, to date, is that NONE of them actually do anything more than help out the financiers; NONE of them directly help struggling mortgage owners or prevent foreclosures on the doorsteps of ordinary home-owners.

Show me ONE ACTUAL instance where anything any government has done, to date, with taxpayers money, has kept a family in their home, to the detriment of those chasing them for unpaid mortgage arrears.

One of the main arguments against the $700Bn bailout is that it's very hard to see where, despite the vast sums of taxpayers money involved, there is anything of any real use to ordinary Americans struggling to fend off the bailiffs from taking their homes from under them. If the bailout offered that protection - in real terms - then perhaps I could concede there might just be some moral/ethical/socially responsible justification for such an intervention. As it stands, I see none.

[Mr Thropwimp]

Cal does have a point. The money used to bail out the banks would only mean they'd continue to run. It wouldn't help the people stuck with massive repayments on their mortgage or whatever. Maybe that wasn't the intent of it, but the taxpayer won't want to end up lining a bank exec's pockets with his own tax money as the rescued bank carries on business as normal. Would the government feed the money raised from their stake in the banks back to the taxpayer? You'd expect some form of return for propping up such large businesses.

That was the reason I was opposed to the idea, anyway, which I find amusing because I wouldn't normally agree with anything the Republicans believed in.

[Hexx]

Get over youself and **** off.

What a funny little person you are, Hexx. You must be so intellectually barren to have to resort to so many vitriolic insults, quite so often. You disgrace only yourself. And stop acting like you are some kind of financial guru, Hexx (albeit a third-rate one). It's very embarrassing and actually quite comical. Who was it said 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing..?' The way you've been behaving in these financial threads is a more than adequate illustration of just such an anecdote.

I've just shown you one. You've ignored it and gone for the attack well done. You don't actually answer the question. You were against them doing it, and condemned them for it. They're now against it, and you attack them.

To claim my views are contradictory is to wilfully ignore the consistency of my views throughout them all. To say I'm not in favour of bailing out failed financiers is not to say I object to helping the REAL victims, however imperfect the eventual solutions employed. The problem with just every bail-out, to date, is that NONE of them actually do anything more than help out the financiers, NONE of them directly help struggling mortgage owners or prevent foreclosures on the doorsteps of ordinary home-owners.

See end

Show me ONE ACTUAL instance where anything any government has done, to date, with taxpayers money, has kept a family in their home, to the detriment of those chasing them for unpaid mortgage arrears.

Off the top of my head?

£200million pound RSL scheme to help about 8000 families.

One of the main arguments against the $700Bn bailout is that it's very hard to see where, despite the vast sums of taxpayers money involved, there is anything of any real use to ordinary Americans struggling to fend off the bailiffs from taking their homes from under them. If the bailout offered that protection - in real terms - than perhaps I could concede there might just be some moral/ethical/socially responsible justification for such an intervention. As it stands, I see none.

And other contradiction.

cannot bring themselves to put the immediate good of their country (and ordinary citizens) ahead of their protectionism of big business interests.

So on one hand it was hard to see how this bail out would help the country/ordinary people.
And on the other hand they should be condemned for refusing to back this bail out and help their country/ordinary people

Oh yes. I'm willfully ignoring your consistency there, for sure.

See. This is what happens when you try and just copy and paste from various sources (I believe this "couldn't see the benefit line" is from Micheal Moore) without any understanding of what you're saying.

A little knowledge may be a dangerous thing, but being a parrot is a dangerous thing

[Hexx]

Cal does have a point.

Yes, but it's not the one he thinks it is.

The money used to bail out the banks would only mean they'd continue to run. It wouldn't help the people stuck with massive repayments on their mortgage or whatever. Maybe that wasn't the intent of it, but the taxpayer won't want to end up lining a bank exec's pockets with his own tax money as the rescued bank carries on business as normal

No true. A more liquid market would mean that interests rates would be less likely to raise and may fall.
You've heard this week that lenders have started to up their SVRs - a move that likely wouldn't have happened in a more liquid market.

It may not have been a full solution, but a more liquid market would likely have prevented things getting worse.

The exec's thing was a large part of why the 700$billion bond was rejected at first. There was no control/oversight, and there was a real possibility for execs to asset strip.

That was the reason I was opposed to the idea, anyway.

There's many different valid reasons for being opposed to it. Because Micheal Moore told me, isn't one.

[Mr Thropwimp]

That was the reason I was opposed to the idea, anyway.

There's many different valid reasons for being opposed to it. Because Micheal Moore told me, isn't one.

Is that aimed at me? I don't think I'd ever listen to anything Michael Moore said; it'd take a lot for me to even acknowledge his existence in the first place.

[Midtown]

I actually thought America would've learned about the dangers of unfettered capitalism after the Wall Street Crash in 1929. To leave something as important as the banking system by and large unregulated is bordering on sheer idiocy.

This isn't a crisis brought on by a lack of regulation or unfettered capitalism (it's never existed), it's a credit crisis brought on by the actions of government and central banks.

[Eighthours]

Nice to know that when the chips are down, those American senators are not watching out for the interests of the common man, but - rather predictably - the financial interests of their friends in big business.

You've completely misinterpreted the reason for various Congressmen not voting for the bail-out. It's the US Congressional elections in 35 days, and they're absolutely paranoid about being seem by their voters to support the bail-out, even though it's totally the right thing to do. There is no other plan. It's not just the bankers that fail if the economy goes down - the general public are going to be just as badly affected.

Unfortunately the public perception of the plan has made the Congressmen terrified of losing their seats. So it's actually their own self-interest that has caused them to vote the way they have, and nothing to do with their "greedy friends" at all. The bankers want this deal!

[Mr Thropwimp]

I actually thought America would've learned about the dangers of unfettered capitalism after the Wall Street Crash in 1929. To leave something as important as the banking system by and large unregulated is bordering on sheer idiocy.

This isn't a crisis brought on by a lack of regulation or unfettered capitalism (it's never existed), it's a credit crisis brought on by the actions of government and central banks.

However, if regulation accounted for this eventuality in the first place, the problem may have been less significant. Right? Which still puts the blame firmly on the government and central banks.

I'm just making this up as I go along really, probably making me look like a bit of an idiot.

[Hexx]

Ooo

Ireland Guarantees ALL deposits

For comparison amount the USA would need to do this would be about $8TRILLION.

[Eighthours]

Ooo

Ireland Guarantees ALL deposits

For comparison amount the USA would need to do this would be about $8TRILLION.

The UK Government has effectively done this too, if not in legislation then certainly in words and guarantees.

[Hexx]

Ooo

Ireland Guarantees ALL deposits

For comparison amount the USA would need to do this would be about $8TRILLION.

The UK Government has effectively done this too, if not in legislation then certainly in words and guarantees.

I disagree. They've done this for all deposits from before Oct 07 with Northern Rock (I'm not sure about Bradford and Bungles).

They have suggested raising the FSCS limit up to £100K though.

Have I missed something? What do you think they've guaranteed?

[Eighthours]

Ooo

Ireland Guarantees ALL deposits

For comparison amount the USA would need to do this would be about $8TRILLION.

The UK Government has effectively done this too, if not in legislation then certainly in words and guarantees.

I disagree. They've done this for all deposits from before Oct 07 with Northern Rock (I'm not sure about Bradford and Bungles).

They have suggested raising the FSCS limit up to £100K though.

Have I missed something? What do you think they've guaranteed?

They're not going to let any British Bank fall. Every time there's a potentially dangerous situation, they're right in there with the promises of protecting depositors' money. There's very little prospect of a single taxpayer losing their savings, no matter what happens in the coming weeks. Just various stuff from interviews with Darling and Brown, really.

[Alvin Flummux]

The moment they allow a bank to fail the Tories will be right there preaching about how Labour has failed/let down the people of Britain. If I were them, I'd try to save as many as possible too.

[Hexx]

They're not going to let any British Bank fall. Every time there's a potentially dangerous situation, they're right in there with the promises of protecting depositors' money. There's very little prospect of a single taxpayer losing their savings, no matter what happens in the coming weeks. Just various stuff from interviews with Darling and Brown, really.

I don't think it will happen, but if a bank does fail spectacularly I don't think the government will step in again and guarantee ALL deposits.

Darling/Brown will try and save as many if possible, if only to lumber the next government with the debts.

[Hexx]

In other news - Growth in Q2 was 0%

[Zartan]

I have been hearing a lot about Japan in 2002. Aparently the Japanease bailed out one bank and actually turned the tax payers a profit in the end, however they appear to be getting caught out with the American debt now...
Little bit about it here
Cant find the source about when they finally sold on the bank though.... Lousy five live

[Eighthours]

In other news - Growth in Q2 was 0%

But be happy for Tesco. Profits up by 10%. Every little helps.

[Hexx]

Every little helps.

That's what your fiancee said.

[Eighthours]

Every little helps.

That's what your fiancee said.