The last hope of the USA

[technodup]

Honestley once people understand where money comes from then any sympathy for banks and 'transaction' taxes will quickly be lost

If that's directed at me 1) it's quite patronising and 2) it's wrong as well. As I alluded to above.

Of course I realise that the mess we're in is entirely the fault of bankers, and absolutely nothing to do with governments and consumers addicted to spending of credit they can't afford. Easy target though. It'll be interesting if the BoE change course and rates start rising, then we'll see some real pain from the "squeezed (bought too much on cheap credit) middle".

Um, isn't one of the things that banks are firmly regulated over, being irresponsible lending to people that can't truly afford it?

I could be wrong, but isn't that one of the very things that the FSA is supposed to regulate in the banking and financial sector?

Yes, and they should be but weren't sufficiently which was part of the problem. But loans are a two way agreement, so to suggest that is all the fault of the banks rather than the muppet public taking credit whilst accepting no personal responsibility for repayment is missing half of the point.

I hear a lot of bank bashing. I don't hear many people admitting they really couldn't afford that house or car or holiday on their salary. I'd argue that other than for a house there shouldn't be any need for credit at all. But (stupid) people don't like being told (or thinking) they can't afford something.

 

[tintin40]

Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4v_tLEkeoo&feature=fvst
The other candidates are clowns.
Ron Paul is genuine.

Getting back to topic this man looks like he has trapped wind. I wouldn't buy a second hand bike from him

This man can save America

 

[Neil]

Honestley once people understand where money comes from then any sympathy for banks and 'transaction' taxes will quickly be lost

If that's directed at me 1) it's quite patronising and 2) it's wrong as well. As I alluded to above.

Of course I realise that the mess we're in is entirely the fault of bankers, and absolutely nothing to do with governments and consumers addicted to spending of credit they can't afford. Easy target though. It'll be interesting if the BoE change course and rates start rising, then we'll see some real pain from the "squeezed (bought too much on cheap credit) middle".

Um, isn't one of the things that banks are firmly regulated over, being irresponsible lending to people that can't truly afford it?

I could be wrong, but isn't that one of the very things that the FSA is supposed to regulate in the banking and financial sector?

Yes, and they should be but weren't sufficiently which was part of the problem. But loans are a two way agreement, so to suggest that is all the fault of the banks rather than the muppet public taking credit whilst accepting no personal responsibility for repayment is missing half of the point.

I hear a lot of bank bashing. I don't hear many people admitting they really couldn't afford that house or car or holiday on their salary. I'd argue that other than for a house there shouldn't be any need for credit at all. But (stupid) people don't like being told (or thinking) they can't afford something.

Loans might be a two-way agreement, but the decision - and perhaps more importantly - the regulation on the decision is of the banking / financial instituition.

I don't really care whether people are feckless, misguided, or perhaps downright euphemistic over what they apply for, the banks are in a position that they are regulated regarding responsible lending - after all, they're supposed to be leagues away from loan sharks.

Perhaps bankers and the financial sector do get bashed - but in fairness, like many will claim - they caused a huge imposition on public finances to prop them up, and whilst many normal people have suffered - in many cases, drastically, due to the financial issues in recent years, most of the banks have seemingly had a publicly funded safety net, that many normal people haven't realised.

So whilst you may not see this as solely the banks responsibliity (responsible lending) that is by-the-by - it is solely their responsiblity, and that is one of the criteria they are damned well regulated by.

 

[Bram J]

Kudos to you Bram.

I am a huge Ron Paul fan, and of his son Rand Paul too. I used to think he was kind of a kook some 10 years ago but sure enough his beliefs have really come home to me and lot more my friends and acquaintances as well.

Now I am not so hot on his platform of legalizing all drugs, but pot is fine with me.

Thanks!
His idea about legalization doesn't float my boat either, but as he wants to leave the decision up to the states in stead of the federal government I don't think any drugs, and definitely no hard drugs, will be legalized under his presidency though.
But I agree with you on that.
Bram

 

[Bram J]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hvuru-Slls

 

[technodup]

So whilst you may not see this as solely the banks responsibliity (responsible lending) that is by-the-by - it is solely their responsiblity, and that is one of the criteria they are damned well regulated by.

Responsible lending is of course the banks (and FSA's) concern.

Responsible borrowing and spending however is the individual's concern. Both have been abused equally, pretty much by definition. For every bank that lent, an individual, company or government borrowed, not that they're going to accept blame when it was all the nasty bankers faults. :roll:

I accept though that one side is seen to have been bailed out and the other not, although I'm not sure the alternative was any more attractive. But as I understand it there is opportunity for the bailout money to be recouped with interest in the event of rising share prices so that might change (the facts not the public's interpretation). As I have already alluded to, the public at large are thick as fnck.

 

[Bram J]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo

 

[Easy_Rider]

Irresponsible lending/borrowing wasn't the only problem. Options trading and various trading practices had a big part to play. The FSA and the BoE both didn't really know who was responsible.

RBS spent its money on dubious aquisitions not nessarily lending too much.

 

[Neil]

So whilst you may not see this as solely the banks responsibliity (responsible lending) that is by-the-by - it is solely their responsiblity, and that is one of the criteria they are damned well regulated by.

Responsible lending is of course the banks (and FSA's) concern.

Responsible borrowing and spending however is the individual's concern. Both have been abused equally, pretty much by definition. For every bank that lent, an individual, company or government borrowed, not that they're going to accept blame when it was all the nasty bankers faults. :roll:

I'm sorry, but I'm just not letting the bankers / financial insitutions off the hook with the lending thing.

They are regulated on doing so correctly - the general public not so - so we don't get to be equitable about the situation and say, well the bankers are only partly at fault, people still asked for the money. It's their fecking place to say no - in fact, they're regulated by a gummint body on them doing so responsibly.

Now true enough, there was a converse or backlash to this - when suddenly, the banks became risk averse, and suddenly weren't prepared to lend much at all, and the government attempted to interfere / intervene - but at the end of the day, the financial sector, and the financial sector alone are responsible - and more than that, regulated so - for lending responsibly, and with mitigated risks.

I accept though that one side is seen to have been bailed out and the other not, although I'm not sure the alternative was any more attractive. But as I understand it there is opportunity for the bailout money to be recouped with interest in the event of rising share prices so that might change (the facts not the public's interpretation). As I have already alluded to, the public at large are thick as fnck.

I don't totally disagree with that, but all the same, goes some way as to explain the animosity or criticisms laid at the door of the oh-so-essential-revenue-gorging-and-good-for-our-economy banking and financial industries.

All the same, a lot of the issues were of their making - both in taking on risks (either in investments, or loans). And at least where the loans are concerned, it is entirely their place to mitigate the risk and do so responsibly. We are where we are with society, and we don't have a regulatory body to manage the general public against fecklessly attempting to borrow when they're not really in position to.

 

[technodup]

the financial sector, and the financial sector alone are responsible .

That's simply not true.

But we're not going to agree so I'll leave it at that.