Be Excellent To Each Other

Check.



WAS, not necessarily 'is'.



NEEDED, not 'needs'. Bit late now, now we've spent the money bailing 'em out.
Anyway, 'torn down' isn't right, merely left to stand or fall just like any other business. There would have been survivors and any savings in the failed banks, up to £100k per capita, could've been guaranteed by the State and all mortgages converted to National Savings mortgages or similar. The billions upon billions saved could've been put to better use than they were.

Should've been done at the time, but instead Labour funked it, naturally (pity poor old MG Rover, producing real stuff instead of bullshit, and employing tens of thousands didn't merit this) and threw hundreds of billions of our money at it, proclaiming themselves 'saviours of the world' whilst they were at it, 'solving' their OWN lack of regulation and control, celebrating their great, potent masculinity and genius. Talk about rich.



No. I have never said this; I hardly think the rank and file bank workers in branches and at the end of telephones etc. are in any way culpable, let alone 'scum'. But I do think the banking sector in general is scum, for self evident reasons. So do most people.



Less than worthless, actually, if considering the last 10 years or so.



You say it's 'incredibly valuable' as if it is a given but AE, myself and perhaps others also dispute this, for the very reasons that have been discussed in this thread. And anyway, these so-called 'profits' you speak of are just that as far as I'm concerned - so-called - for the to me entirely reasonable, common business sense reasons that I give.

[/quote]

It's obvious what went fucking wrong, you yourself have described it in detail in this thread, and we each of us have eyes to see. Retribution? Not particularly interested. Fix the problem? The solutions are patently obvious - run banks like any other sanely and sustainably run and regulated business, not one founded on imaginary profits, just like they were until pretty recently, and they (and us) will all be fine.

Sorry, that's a bit misrepresentative, I agree.



Well no, i don't say it's a given. I quite clearly said that it's my opinion. However, your reasoning for why they aren't real profits is unequivocably wrong. Whatever you think about the way those profits are generated, and I don't much disgree with you about that, the profits are absolutely real money, and so are the salaries of the staff and the taxes that go into the UK treasury coffers.

If I had a pound for every time I've heard, 'We must learn from our mistakes and ensure that they never happen again,' I'd have a good few grand by now. Either we don't learn, or the goalposts move so what we've learned won't be relevant, or yet again, some clever sod works out how to work around the new checks and balances and earn huge wads of dosh at someone else's expense. And we go around the boom and bust cycle again.

It only takes one Nick Leeson and some line managers taking their eye off the ball for major fuck-ups to occur, and vast numbers of innocent savers to lose their shirts. I think this is one of the reasons everyone now hates the banks more than ever, along with bad banking practice, as demonstrated in this week's Panorama, when bank advisers gave misleading advice to small investors who quickly lost large percentages of their investments. We keep being told the banks are going to be more heavily regulated to protect customers and then the next mis-selling scandal hits the media.

You can blame Labour for not having the balls to reform the banking sector at the time, when the political will for it actually existed and they wouldn't have had much defence. Now though, well, I can't really see anyone acting too differently, especially the public.

Well, you can a little bit, but bear in mind that the banking sector is global, and the banking collapse was global, and much of fiscal policy/regulation is global, too.

Sorry I've been out for lunch and I see the debate has moved on somewhat.

But aren't these the same ratings agencies who were slapping triple-AAA ratings on all the CDOs and all that other shite, right up until the day the whole thing went pop?

The same ratings agencies that can effectively bring down the PIGS nations by virtue of their 'opinions'.

Indeed, as I understand it all the major ratings agencies were able to completely wash their hands of their utter bollocks triple-AAA ratings on the CDOs by saying it was just an opinion, not actual advice.

These motherfuckers should be in jail, not deciding the fates of millions of normal people.

Precisely AE, and said 'Credit Ratings' no doubt (mis)informed a great many 'real money' (e.g. pension plan) investments that Doc G and Plissken allude to as well.

There's three things around the ratings agencies.

1) A number of analysts were undoubtedly paid off to look the other way, which is clearly criminal.
2) A number of analysts would have been just incapable of seeing how bad the problem was getting, because they just didn't know where the bottom of these assets lay.
3) The ratings agencies clearly need to be regulated at least as stringently at the banks do.

So:

1) Fraud, leading to the mis-direction and ultimately loss of billions of dollars worth of investment (no doubt giving rise to 'profits' duly taxed in a derisory manner by a grateful, ever more supportive, lapdog, unsavvy government(s)

2) Woeful incompetence

3) Yes, but horse (and several hundreds of billions in bail out funds) has bolted

Credit Agencies are, of course, very much part of the collective Finance 'Industry' that we are discussing here.

Unfortunately, the truth is that banks have basically controlled Wall Street, Downing Street and every other 'Government Street' for too long now, although it's only become blatantly apparent since around the 1980s when the wholesale deregulation of the banking sectors began in earnest (Reagan was basically an old duffer installed for the banks' convenience to get the legislation through they wanted).

Labour were an embarrassment in government on this, utterly disastrous, but there's little sign that the Tories have any interest in upsetting the banks either. Even now Osborne won't demand that investment/casino banking and basic high street banking be split up, instead asking for them to 'ringfence' their operations (I see Nigel Lawson has effectively called bollocks on this as it won't work).

Cavey is quite right to mention Rover. Sure it was badly run and it had its problems, but it employed thousands of people and it actually produced something, and Labour let it sink for want of a few million quid. The banks fuck up by an astronomically large order of magnitude more, and get hundreds of BILLIONS chucked at them as a rescue, paid for by Mr Joe Bloggs earning minimum wage.

There is only one conclusion an observer can reach, and that is that governments are corrupt and run by/for the convenience of banks.

This could be a case for Mulder and Scully.

Check out this clip at the one minute mark.

It's the president of the United States being told (effectively) to shut the fuck up and get off the stage.

By a banker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnwtBSbA1c0

And this is proof that the banking system rigged the US presidential election...?

I realise your standard response is some kind of catty 'quip' in these situations Doc, I was wondering when you'd be along with it this time around.

Happy to help. HAND.

No but it is a particularly compelling clip.

I've cited a few sources in my original post to this thread, and I've read/watched around this subject an awful lot over the last few years. I'm reasonably comfortable with the conclusions I've reached based on the evidence of what's happened, and what has been done about it.

Hey, perhaps we should be talking about really important stuff like the merits of the iPhone 4, right Doc?

Come on, he's claiming with a straight face that bankers control the election process in the largest democracy on earth and can "install" the candidate of their choosing. This is textbook Illuminati 101 wingnut territory. There's literally no sensible response to that; you can't reason with someone about a conclusion they didn't reach on a rational basis in the first place.

You may not agree with me, but that doesn't mean I haven't followed a rational thought process to reach the conclusion I have.

Unless you're implying I'm actually crackers, or something.

You're also paraphrasing what I've said, the truth - (as in, actual verifiable fact) - is that private banks are amongst the biggest contributors to all presidential election campaigns. Goldman Sachs for example chucked hundreds of millions at Obama and McCain in the last US election. They didn't care who won particularly, as either was going to be 'their man'.

Not sure this helps..

HBOS are for instance:

National Westminster Bank
Royal Bank of Scotland
+ others.


Now lets just step through what could have happened to me, for example, if they (UK Government) have let HBOS fail. I often have my ideas but I'd like to see what other peoples take is.

I have a mortgage and some savings with NatWest, a loan (or two) with the Bank Scotland. What in theory would have happened, to me?

Sorry to jump in and whizz off topic here, but if you have savings, shouldn't you use them to pay off your loan early?
Unless the interest on your savings is higher than the interest on your loan (and, being a NatWest customer myself, I'd be very surprised)?

"Hundreds of millions"? Whoh, that's loads! Really?

Oh, wait, no. Goldman Sachs gave Obama $994,795 in 2008. That was his second biggest doner, admittedly -- first was the University of California with $1,591,395. Harvard also gave $854,747. Next highest were Microsoft and Google, then you get a few more banks below them. Surely he should have a pro-Ivy League and pro-tech agenda, if anything? This was also reported by CNN, in case you want to pick holes in the citation. Oh, and Goldman Sachs gave McCain $230,095.

So the donations were actually $1,224,890, quite a bit short of "hundreds of millions" in my book. Got any more "actual verifiable facts" to show us?

Great, now see what you guys have done! Stop talking before you break any more banks.

Some loans have early repayment charges, so in some cases it might be better to leave it as it is. Normally you're better off with less savings and less debt though, unless, as Grim says, you're getting awesome interest ( and if you're paying tax on that interest, it has be really awesome ). Some buffer savings might be handy, even if you have debt, just in case you need a quick bunch of cash ( like if you need car repairs or a plumber ).

Assuming RBS group went to the wall, you'd have your saving reimbursed by the FSCS eventuall, assuming it wasn't more than 50 grand. The receivers would sell off RBS's loan and mortgage books to someone else to try and repay creditors, so you'd be largely unaffected there.

You might find it hard to remortgage, e.g. to change your type of product. My mortgage was with Mortgage Express, the sketchy high-risk part of Bradford and Bingley, so it's now publicly owned; as a result I can't do anything at all to it except move to another provider. I think even my early repayment options are restricted.

Also I think that if you had savings of 2 grand and an overdraft of 1 grand, you'd just get 1 grand back.

More on Obama's donors -- I forgot to add that these donations do not come from the company, as it might look at first glance. They are the sum of all donations of all employees of the company, and their immediate family. This is because firms in the US funnel donations through individuals for legal reasons (a dirty trick, to be sure), but it also causes an overcounting effect that would over-represent large firms with many wealthy employees. At least some (but not all) of whom would be donating on their own conscience and not part of some overarching conspiracy. This would tend to make the banks look more like colluders than they are in reality.

That's what they want you to think, maaaan.

Sorry I misread the numbers, (I was using the same site that you've linked to), although banks are the biggest contributors overall, so that point still stands.

How convenient!

Gosh no!

Well, not necessarily Depends on your need for liquidity and attitude to risk and expectation on being able to get finance in the future.
If you give back the money you have borrowed, you can't just get it back if you need it...

More donor fun! Wrong again, I'm afraid.

Let's split them down into groups and total it up.

Educational donors: total $3561001, 26.4%
University of California $1,591,395
Harvard University $854,747
Stanford University $586,557
Columbia University $528,302

Financial services: total $3449317, 25.6%
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Goldman Sachs $994,795
UBS AG $543,219
Morgan Stanley $514,881

Tech firms: total $2165875, 16.1%
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
IBM Corp $528,822

Law firms: $2155890, 16.0%
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
Latham & Watkins $493,835

Media: $1141767, 8.5%
Time Warner $590,084
National Amusements Inc $551,683

Other: $993950, 7.4%
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820

(Note that all this in total only represents 73% of Obama's funding, the rest coming from "uncoded" small individual donations).

A substantial donation from the banks, to be sure -- but still only 19% of the funds for his campaign overall. I don't feel this constitutes the ZOMG PARANOIA territory you are portraying it as, AE.

How much would I get out of Obama if I sent him £50 at the next election? I'd quite like a brief mention on the telly at least.

Well it's 19% too much.

Considering that private banks are responsible for creating the USA's currency (as interest bearing debt), I'm not comfortable with them having had a 20% stake in getting their president of choice into the White House.

But you are comfortable with the Law firms, tech firms and media donations?

Not particularly, no, but I don't think they have the ability to bring down the entire world economy and impoverish tens of millions of people, so they're not as dangerous.

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!

Somebody has to fund it. The way the US political system works means that you won't win a presidency without a ton of cash to spend along the way.

OK then, (and this is a response to DocG as well with regards to the 'wingnut conspiracy theory' comment), why would any organisation contribute towards a presidential campaign? (And in particular, why would they contribute to both candidates, they're clearly not doing it because of a strong ideological connection to a particular party or person.)

The answer is pretty self-apparent, that organisation will expect to 'have the ear' and/or influence with the person who's elected and/or their party. After all, banks are ruthless commercial operations, interested in one thing only, profits.

They won't donate millions of dollars to presidential hopefuls because they like the suits they wear, they'll expect a return on that investment.

Whichever way you slice it, the banks want influence with the government of the day, and they're prepared to pay money to help see it happen. My contention is that's a fundamentally bad thing and pretty much by definition, corrupts the principles of good government, especially when those same banks issue the 'government's money', as debt to the government, with the taxpayers having to make the repayments plus interest.

For a bet.

They like the cut of his jib.

I don't disagree at all. I imagine there are fairly solid promises made in exchange for cash at those times.



Everyone has an agenda though. In the states I would suggest that the interests of Big Pharma and the impact on healthcare is possibly even more pernicious than that of banking, for example.

Defence contractors and energy companies as well, I'd say.

When there's only one candidate, there's only one choice: Governor marley

Indeed, and if you add it all together, you're left with the stench of what would generally be called corruption, are you not?

Basic point here is that governments should not be funded/influenced by organisations with blatant commercial agendas, with banks at the top of the shitlist.

Because, once again, those aren't donations from organisations, they are donations from people who work for the organisations. If Jimmy Obama-supporter and Johnny McCain-supporter both work for JP Morgan Chase and donate money from their own pockets[1], their donations show up in those two columns as being from the company. This isn't proof the company is buying either candidate, let alone both of them. Some of these donations are funnelled from the company, yes, but we cannot know how much.

If the company really was trying to contribute to both candidates, you'd assume it would be roughly equal amounts to both, whereas Goldman Sachs (for example) actually donated three times more to Obama than they did to McCain. If they consciously made inequal donations, on the other hand, and McCain won, you cannot imagine they'd have bought much influence with him as they gave far more to his opponent. Because of this, I claim that the Goldman Sachs donations of $300k to McCain were almost certainly entirely the doing of staff and not derived from company policy at all, and there was no attempt to buy both candidates, because there's no way that can work in practice. Alternatively, perhaps they did give equally to both -- just $300k of corp donations each, and the other $650k to Obama came from individual staff donations. In which case it would appear that less than 1/3rd of those donations was from the business and the other parts were genuinely from individual donors and given with no sinister overtones.

Either way, I don't think your argument holds any water.

[1] Weird to us, but quite common in America -- I think Danielle donated to Obama's compaign, for example. This was nothing to do with her employer but would have appeared in that column in the statistics.

You mean like corporation tax?

But that's 95% of campaign. And at no point are governments going to vote to kill their own campaign funding golden geese. I don't disagree, I just think you're pretty much living in dreamland.

How do you think credit cards end up at 30% interest?

Men like this control everything!!!

See now this is the kind of shit I'm talking about.

Private banks have refused point-blank to contribute to the latest Greek bail-out, even though their exposure to that debt is estimated to be tens of billions of euros.

So what happens? The taxpayer picks up the whole tab instead, and the private banks have their reckless lending guaranteed anyway.

Isn't the point of lending money and charging interest being that you assess the risk and if you fuck up, you lose your money? Apparently not.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ju ... vate-banks