Lxxx Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 If we are to ever move to a fairer monetary system then this one needs to crash and burn as you can't just tinker round the edges and expect it to change. It will not happen. The governemnt bailed out Northern Rock. It could not afford to bail out HBOS or RBS. It bought into RBS and tricked Lloyds into buying HBOS, whilst hiding the extent of HBOS's debt. Then the government bought into Lloyds. The bail out figures are eyewatering. It will never happen. I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 If we are to ever move to a fairer monetary system then this one needs to crash and burn as you can't just tinker round the edges and expect it to change. It will not happen. The governemnt bailed out Northern Rock. It could not afford to bail out HBOS or RBS. It bought into RBS and tricked Lloyds into buying HBOS, whilst hiding the extent of HBOS's debt. Then the government bought into Lloyds. The bail out figures are eyewatering. It will never happen. I agree. Is there any clue in the full meanings of the initials RBS and HBOS as to why Gordon Brown organised their rescue (and the damge to Lloyds balance sheet)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Runner Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 I can understand your point. My counter argument is that we have been spending trillions around the world to shore-up what is essentially the money transfer system (the banks) whilst ignoring the fact that the banks do not create wealth. It may well have been better to let the banks go bust in the first place rather than subsidising them so massively and so continuously. But if we are going to print and lend money into the financial system IMO we should do so in a way that stimulates economic activity. I can see what you are saying but letting the banks go bust would that also not wipe out the savings of all the banks customers? Or are you suggesting let the banks go under and the government of whatever country's are involved would reinstate the savings of all account holders? I seem to remember that the US did a bit of stimulation of the economy by giving around 6-700 dollars to every taxpayer 2 or 3 years ago but it failed to stimulate because most used it to pay down debt, not spend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 I can understand your point. My counter argument is that we have been spending trillions around the world to shore-up what is essentially the money transfer system (the banks) whilst ignoring the fact that the banks do not create wealth. It may well have been better to let the banks go bust in the first place rather than subsidising them so massively and so continuously. But if we are going to print and lend money into the financial system IMO we should do so in a way that stimulates economic activity. I can see what you are saying but letting the banks go bust would that also not wipe out the savings of all the banks customers? Or are you suggesting let the banks go under and the government of whatever country's are involved would reinstate the savings of all account holders? I seem to remember that the US did a bit of stimulation of the economy by giving around 6-700 dollars to every taxpayer 2 or 3 years ago but it failed to stimulate because most used it to pay down debt, not spend. What I was actually suggesting was that rather than shore-up the banks by pumping the money directly onto their balance sheets, which fundamentally locked it away, it would have been better to pass that same money through wealth creating economic processes which would have created economic activity rather than austerity and reduced government welfare spending, increased VAT receipts, increased income tax receipts, bolstered currencies and probably have cost a whole lot less. The conservatively based economic policy of baling out banks directly has protected savings to an extent (well their capital not really any earnings on capital or protection against inflation or monetary inflation) and to an extent saved investors from absolute obliteration ( in the UK, but not in Ireland) but has not stimulated any significant economic activity. It seems to me to have been almost a total waste of the economic benefits pumping that much money into economies could have created. My impression is that it was a knee-jerk reaction based on the Establishments assumption that the way they have operated in the past was the solution to a new problem. As Einstein said "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 If we are to ever move to a fairer monetary system then this one needs to crash and burn as you can't just tinker round the edges and expect it to change. It will not happen. The governemnt bailed out Northern Rock. It could not afford to bail out HBOS or RBS. It bought into RBS and tricked Lloyds into buying HBOS, whilst hiding the extent of HBOS's debt. Then the government bought into Lloyds. The bail out figures are eyewatering. It will never happen. I agree. Is there any clue in the full meanings of the initials RBS and HBOS as to why Gordon Brown organised their rescue (and the damge to Lloyds balance sheet)? Not a bad shout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 I can see what you are saying but letting the banks go bust would that also not wipe out the savings of all the banks customers? Or are you suggesting let the banks go under and the government of whatever country's are involved would reinstate the savings of all account holders? Arguable that that is what the UK should have done in the first place had they not been caught in the headlights and had to take the advice of those very same bankers. Mind you, what if they'd said "OK banks go to the wall, we liquidate them and we pick up all of the customers' accounts, but only in the UK, not foreign and offshore subsidiaries."? That would have been a fun day on Athol Street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Mind you, what if they'd said "OK banks go to the wall, we liquidate them and we pick up all of the customers' accounts, but only in the UK, not foreign and offshore subsidiaries."? That would have been a fun day on Athol Street. The UK's action in pumping its taxpayer money into UK banks in effect saved the IOM finance sector. Maybe they should be asking AB for additional contributions over and above changes to the VAT agreement. Murphy has cottoned on to this one.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Oh yes. We'd be totally stuffed without their intervention. This is why it amuses me when I hear MHKs talking about "robber baron state" and such or Allan Bell comparing our reserves to their deficit and saying how well we are doing. A bit rich really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GD4ELI Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Oh yes. We'd be totally stuffed without their intervention. This is why it amuses me when I hear MHKs talking about "robber baron state" and such or Allan Bell comparing our reserves to their deficit and saying how well we are doing. A bit rich really. Spot on, sadly so many people don't realise how much the IOM gets away with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Oh yes. We'd be totally stuffed without their intervention. This is why it amuses me when I hear MHKs talking about "robber baron state" and such or Allan Bell comparing our reserves to their deficit and saying how well we are doing. A bit rich really. Spot on, sadly so many people don't realise how much the IOM gets away with. 'Got' away with. Whitehall and the Treasury are onto the island big time. Fun days are over. Time to smell the coffee. Was speaking to someone last night who had a conversation with AB recently and collared him over increasing government influence in personal affairs....his reply....'We've only just started.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Runner Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Oh yes. We'd be totally stuffed without their intervention. This is why it amuses me when I hear MHKs talking about "robber baron state" and such or Allan Bell comparing our reserves to their deficit and saying how well we are doing. A bit rich really. Spot on, sadly so many people don't realise how much the IOM gets away with. 'Got' away with. Whitehall and the Treasury are onto the island big time. Fun days are over. Time to smell the coffee. Was speaking to someone last night who had a conversation with AB recently and collared him over increasing government influence in personal affairs....his reply....'We've only just started.' What do you mean by "personal affairs"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Blimey. I'd better watch out which ladies I talk too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 increasing government influence in personal affairs....his reply....'We've only just started.' How about this as a conspiracy theory? They are going to be asking lots more questions about peoples' financial affairs so that Honest Al and Fast Eddie can have a stab at seeing how much they could raise with CGT and/or IHT without "scaring the horses" away. They are determined not to shrink Government and its' activities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GD4ELI Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 ...how much they could raise with CGT and/or IHT without "scaring the horses" away. I think the horses are already very nervous, it may be a question of time before there is a stampede. I would actually go for IHT and property tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted July 7, 2012 Author Share Posted July 7, 2012 it may be a question of time before there is a stampede.. where are they going to go ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.