La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090713/tuk-1...ts-6323e80.html This is just nuts how much money has been used to bailouts the banks. Acting UKFI chairman Glen Moreno said: "Make no mistake - this ain't over yet. We are a long way away from normalcy in the world's financial markets." And it's normality, not normalcy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 Rather hyped up, and the bit about the stakes increasing is not strictly true. In fact, Lloyds have already started lowering UKFI's stake which is now at 43%. UKFI also held some preference shares which Lloyds bought back a few weeks ago. They are now in the position to start reconsidering dividends. When that announcement comes, the price will shoot up, and the tax payer will suddenly be in profit on the LLoyds shares. You wont be complaining then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 13, 2009 Author Share Posted July 13, 2009 Possibly, but I object very much to the 'matter of course' manner in which the banks (and economies) problems are dealt with by using public funds. If the outcome of all this is an much more stringent regulation then I think such action is slightly mitigated in its wrongfulness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 Possibly, but I object very much to the 'matter of course' manner in which the banks (and economies) problems are dealt with by using public funds. If the outcome of all this is an much more stringent regulation then I think such action is slightly mitigated in its wrongfulness. Supporting the banks is better than them going under as KSF did. At least HMG has the chance of getting the money back as the share prices rise, rather than having to bail out the depositors with no hope of getting the money back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 13, 2009 Author Share Posted July 13, 2009 Possibly, but I object very much to the 'matter of course' manner in which the banks (and economies) problems are dealt with by using public funds. If the outcome of all this is an much more stringent regulation then I think such action is slightly mitigated in its wrongfulness. Supporting the banks is better than them going under as KSF did. At least HMG has the chance of getting the money back as the share prices rise, rather than having to bail out the depositors with no hope of getting the money back. Well...yes, unfortunately is appears to be the only option left. But my issue is with the very fact that financial catastrophes such as this can happen and be dealt with in such a ideologically hypocritical manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellyup Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 Possibly, but I object very much to the 'matter of course' manner in which the banks (and economies) problems are dealt with by using public funds. If the outcome of all this is an much more stringent regulation then I think such action is slightly mitigated in its wrongfulness. How would you deal with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 Yay, 4 posts in before KSF got mentioned wohooo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellyup Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 Possibly, but I object very much to the 'matter of course' manner in which the banks (and economies) problems are dealt with by using public funds. If the outcome of all this is an much more stringent regulation then I think such action is slightly mitigated in its wrongfulness. Supporting the banks is better than them going under as KSF did. At least HMG has the chance of getting the money back as the share prices rise, rather than having to bail out the depositors with no hope of getting the money back. Well...yes, unfortunately is appears to be the only option left. But my issue is with the very fact that financial catastrophes such as this can happen and be dealt with in such a ideologically hypocritical manner. But as always it is only the depositors that lose out the bank managers are still doing fine. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/busi...icle6711062.ece Even when a bank goes down the Directors still enjoy large salaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 How would you deal with it? Personally (repeating what was in other threads) I think paying the money directly into banks' balance sheets has not been very effective - it stopped a collapse but has failed to get the banks lending to business to support enterprise and employment - not surprising as the system was devised by public servants who have job security (at their level). Today's jobless figures indicate the growth of the problem. I like the quote from Einstein: "the thinking that got you into the problem is not the thinking that will get you out of it". IMO it would have been a lot more effective to route the money into the banks via using it en-route to pay off a proportion of debt. The big problem is fundamentally the level of bad and doubtful debt that accumulated - as long as that is out there the banks have to secure their balance sheets - giving money directly to them does that but does not get rid of the bad debt so they have to shore up their capital. The other way reduces the bad debt level and eases the balance sheet issue. And it is possible...the Australian Tax Office mailed cheques to most Australians as part of fiscal stimulation so HMRC ought to be capable of doing the same (but with the cheques made payable to the bank in return for writing down the personal/business debt of the recipient). I fear that the UK public service are incapable of lateral thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 I would certainly appreciate the Government paying off some of my mortgage and credit cards! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesemonster2005 Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 And it's normality, not normalcy! Yes, normalcy is a horrible word but recently I read that in fact normalcy is the older word and not just some American invention. As for bailing out the banks - why do they always start at the top? When a company goes bust it's always those at the top (the most important creditors) who are repaid first (i.e. tax man, bank loans) and the bottom creditors get stiffed (i.e. small businesses owed money by the bust company). It's the same in this case. I can see that jobs are being saved but these companies, if they're nationalized, should be permanently nationalized and directors or former CEOs should be paid sweet FA or at most the same amount as their PA. How about bailing out some of the small businesses? How about tax credits and other tax benefits for ordinary people (and not just "families" but even single people too). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellyup Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 I would certainly appreciate the Government paying off some of my mortgage and credit cards! Someone had to deposit the money that was lent to you for your mortgage it just didnt appear out of thin air. Why should someone else pay off your credit cards ? Mind you its better than saving up for something - you cant get robbed of your savings if you have spent someones elses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 16, 2009 Author Share Posted July 16, 2009 As for bailing out the banks - why do they always start at the top? When a company goes bust it's always those at the top (the most important creditors) who are repaid first (i.e. tax man, bank loans) and the bottom creditors get stiffed (i.e. small businesses owed money by the bust company). It's the same in this case. I can see that jobs are being saved but these companies, if they're nationalized, should be permanently nationalized and directors or former CEOs should be paid sweet FA or at most the same amount as their PA. How about bailing out some of the small businesses? How about tax credits and other tax benefits for ordinary people (and not just "families" but even single people too). Nobody DESERVES bailing out. The very idea of bailing out any business, whether it be important banks or not, demonstrates a hypocritical line of thinking. We live in a society where capitalist practices prevail in the aspects of resources control and ownership of wealth. However, as soon as those who control these things mess up suddently the government steps in support them. It just appears to maintain a status quo that is based on allowing the owners of capital to take risks, but when they make bad risks it is the everyone who has to take to hit. It isn't right. If it weren't for the fact that people accept the current economic system as a unalterable 'given' and look at what damage is caused by capitalist risk-taking - I think there would be far more outrage than there is to bailing out businesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Bellyache - please learn to recognise a light-hearted comment when you see one. BTW, money does actually appear out of thin air. I suggest you look into the way that fiat money is created (and can be destroyed) - plenty of good books to tell you about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Someone had to deposit the money that was lent to you for your mortgage it just didnt appear out of thin air. Why should someone else pay off your credit cards ? Mind you its better than saving up for something - you cant get robbed of your savings if you have spent someones elses. Then I suggest you ask the recievers who KSF lent money to and ask them for your savings back, after all to partialy quote yourself why should someone else pay off what you lost in a bad investment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.