£20 Billion to promote lending whilst the Bonuses go on:
Discussion
R11ysf said:
As I said, most people know sod all about the city and spout s
t all the time but let's not pretend we are hard done by, we trade off job security for an upside that is unimaginable elsewhere (short of starting your own company)
I think you fall into the category you describe. Being fired, and then getting another job is not job security - it is career security. Good people in every industry have career security to some extent - doesn't mean it's particularly nice to receive a P45 at short notice or lined up in a meeting room (as a previous poster described). Secondly, these well-paid settlements jobs you talk about are either at the top end of the scale or contract roles - the average permanent salary is around 40-60k. And contracting is a slightly different game.t all the time but let's not pretend we are hard done by, we trade off job security for an upside that is unimaginable elsewhere (short of starting your own company)As for an this unimaginable upside, assume you are talking about a typical public sector scheme - even for a teacher it will be worth a bar or not far short off. How many of trade settlements folk can boast a pension pot anywhere near assuming they haven't pissed all their income on a white Audi or RRS.
Bing o said:
Steffan said:
The Banks are not lending to SME's in the UK as we need them to lend.
Then, on the subject of the banking collapse and in the same post...Steffan said:
No one forced the Bankers to lend to anyone.
The OP has at least shown consistency in his inconsistency.
I go back to my first post.
Please answer the question Steffan:
walm said:
Which would you rather have Steffan?
1. Lax lending criteria driving bubbles.
2. Sensible lending to viable businesses.
Are you a moron?
1. Lax lending criteria driving bubbles.
2. Sensible lending to viable businesses.
Are you a moron?
Clearly a fair number of people on OH think I am wrong.
The use of the word moron seems to me to be emotive and unnecessary.
In my opinion it is perfectly possible to have controlled prudent banking and achieve lending to SME's within the UK.
The fact that you do not is not my problem. It is yours. I think you are wrong.
My answer is I believe that if the Banks in the UK were organised and structured differently with genuine business growth as a prime objective we would do better than we are as an Economy.
I see absolutely no reason why this is unachievable or should not be a policy of government.
What we actually have is a Banking system that would collapse if the taxpayer withdrew their support. The Banks went bust not the British Taxpayer.
It is the Banks that need to change.
The use of the word moron seems to me to be emotive and unnecessary.
In my opinion it is perfectly possible to have controlled prudent banking and achieve lending to SME's within the UK.
The fact that you do not is not my problem. It is yours. I think you are wrong.
My answer is I believe that if the Banks in the UK were organised and structured differently with genuine business growth as a prime objective we would do better than we are as an Economy.
I see absolutely no reason why this is unachievable or should not be a policy of government.
What we actually have is a Banking system that would collapse if the taxpayer withdrew their support. The Banks went bust not the British Taxpayer.
It is the Banks that need to change.
Steffan said:
Clearly a fair number of people on OH think I am wrong.
The use of the word moron seems to me to be emotive and unnecessary.
In my opinion it is perfectly possible to have controlled prudent banking and achieve lending to SME's within the UK.
The fact that you do not is not my problem. It is yours. I think you are wrong.
My answer is I believe that if the Banks in the UK were organised and structured differently with genuine business growth as a prime objective we would do better than we are as an Economy.
I see absolutely no reason why this is unachievable or should not be a policy of government.
What we actually have is a Banking system that would collapse if the taxpayer withdrew their support. The Banks went bust not the British Taxpayer.
It is the Banks that need to change.
which banks would collapse?The use of the word moron seems to me to be emotive and unnecessary.
In my opinion it is perfectly possible to have controlled prudent banking and achieve lending to SME's within the UK.
The fact that you do not is not my problem. It is yours. I think you are wrong.
My answer is I believe that if the Banks in the UK were organised and structured differently with genuine business growth as a prime objective we would do better than we are as an Economy.
I see absolutely no reason why this is unachievable or should not be a policy of government.
What we actually have is a Banking system that would collapse if the taxpayer withdrew their support. The Banks went bust not the British Taxpayer.
It is the Banks that need to change.
the policy to promote owning your own house was done via the government and was a policy forced on the banks, look what happened, how is what you are suggesting but to businesses this time any different from before?
Du1point8 said:
Steffan said:
Clearly a fair number of people on OH think I am wrong.
The use of the word moron seems to me to be emotive and unnecessary.
In my opinion it is perfectly possible to have controlled prudent banking and achieve lending to SME's within the UK.
The fact that you do not is not my problem. It is yours. I think you are wrong.
My answer is I believe that if the Banks in the UK were organised and structured differently with genuine business growth as a prime objective we would do better than we are as an Economy.
I see absolutely no reason why this is unachievable or should not be a policy of government.
What we actually have is a Banking system that would collapse if the taxpayer withdrew their support. The Banks went bust not the British Taxpayer.
It is the Banks that need to change.
which banks would collapse?The use of the word moron seems to me to be emotive and unnecessary.
In my opinion it is perfectly possible to have controlled prudent banking and achieve lending to SME's within the UK.
The fact that you do not is not my problem. It is yours. I think you are wrong.
My answer is I believe that if the Banks in the UK were organised and structured differently with genuine business growth as a prime objective we would do better than we are as an Economy.
I see absolutely no reason why this is unachievable or should not be a policy of government.
What we actually have is a Banking system that would collapse if the taxpayer withdrew their support. The Banks went bust not the British Taxpayer.
It is the Banks that need to change.
the policy to promote owning your own house was done via the government and was a policy forced on the banks, look what happened, how is what you are suggesting but to businesses this time any different from before?
Do you honestly think anyone would leave their money in Banks in the UK unless there was an absolute guarantee of payment? The spectre of thousands and thousands of individuals queuing at Northern Rock is still fresh in the minds of the public.
I believe you are making the same mistake as the contributor who blamed the Regulators for the banking crisis, in suggesting it was the governments responsibility that the Banks grossly overlent.
The fact is the Banks got it totally wrong and in the ten years to 2008 the Banks managed to ruin themselves and the institutions that had existed as safe deposit takers for hundreds of years.
I am not defending the idiots Blair and Brown or the FSA or the BoE. They were all complicit in the madness.
But the primary responsibility for the collapse of banking in 2008 must rest upon the Banks themselves. No one forced any of the Banks to lend.
The Banks decided to borrow short and lend long, relying on the money markets to fuel the gap. They stopped. The banks collapsed.
Whose fault would you like it to be?
Steffan said:
My answer is I believe that if the Banks in the UK were organised and structured differently with genuine business growth as a prime objective we would do better than we are as an Economy.
I see absolutely no reason why this is unachievable or should not be a policy of government.
What are these SME's going to make? How will they compete with cheap products form abroad? I see absolutely no reason why this is unachievable or should not be a policy of government.
Steffan said:
What we actually have is a Banking system that would collapse if the taxpayer withdrew their support. The Banks went bust not the British Taxpayer.
It is the Banks that need to change.
1. The British Taxpayer stands to do quite well out of unwinding Northern Rock, with a projected profit of around £11billion being touted last month once the "bad bank" is sorted.It is the Banks that need to change.
2. The British taxpayer was more than happy to take loans from these banks to fund their lifestyles. Whilst the banks may have dangled lending in front of people, none were forced to take it.
3. The banks may need to change, but part of that will be the famous use of "prudence" when it comes to lending. I guess right now there's an awful lot of SME's that don't meet any prudence tests. If the firms are not good credit why should the banks lend to them, to do so would be reckless no?
The word moron may be emotive and unnecessary, but you do seem to attract that epithet from a number of people. Maybe you should consider why.
Steffan said:
If the government removed the guarantee from all the Banks offered to depositors the entire banking industry would collapse forthwith.
No bank in the world can survive a run, that is the whole reason for this guarantee. If you want banks to lend, which it appears you do, then it is not possible for them to both have the funds to repay all of the depositors and simultaneously lend that same money!! What exactly is it that you want, other than to moan continually at bankers and their bonus payments.Steffan said:
If the government removed the guarantee from all the Banks offered to depositors the entire banking industry would collapse forthwith.
This is true, and necessary, in every developed economy. Would you put your savings in a bank that didn't have deposit guarantees ? More importantly, how do you think interbank operations would work if every counterparty had to be credit risk assessed per transaction. You are an idiot and you continue to underline that with every statement you make.scotal said:
1. The British Taxpayer stands to do quite well out of unwinding Northern Rock, with a projected profit of around £11billion being touted last month once the "bad bank" is sorted.
Precisely this.The taxpayer will make BILLIONS from the process. But that's a bit too much of an Incovenient Truth, isn't it Steffan?
Steffan said:
Du1point8 said:
Steffan said:
Clearly a fair number of people on OH think I am wrong.
The use of the word moron seems to me to be emotive and unnecessary.
In my opinion it is perfectly possible to have controlled prudent banking and achieve lending to SME's within the UK.
The fact that you do not is not my problem. It is yours. I think you are wrong.
My answer is I believe that if the Banks in the UK were organised and structured differently with genuine business growth as a prime objective we would do better than we are as an Economy.
I see absolutely no reason why this is unachievable or should not be a policy of government.
What we actually have is a Banking system that would collapse if the taxpayer withdrew their support. The Banks went bust not the British Taxpayer.
It is the Banks that need to change.
which banks would collapse?The use of the word moron seems to me to be emotive and unnecessary.
In my opinion it is perfectly possible to have controlled prudent banking and achieve lending to SME's within the UK.
The fact that you do not is not my problem. It is yours. I think you are wrong.
My answer is I believe that if the Banks in the UK were organised and structured differently with genuine business growth as a prime objective we would do better than we are as an Economy.
I see absolutely no reason why this is unachievable or should not be a policy of government.
What we actually have is a Banking system that would collapse if the taxpayer withdrew their support. The Banks went bust not the British Taxpayer.
It is the Banks that need to change.
the policy to promote owning your own house was done via the government and was a policy forced on the banks, look what happened, how is what you are suggesting but to businesses this time any different from before?
Do you honestly think anyone would leave their money in Banks in the UK unless there was an absolute guarantee of payment? The spectre of thousands and thousands of individuals queuing at Northern Rock is still fresh in the minds of the public.
I believe you are making the same mistake as the contributor who blamed the Regulators for the banking crisis, in suggesting it was the governments responsibility that the Banks grossly overlent.
The fact is the Banks got it totally wrong and in the ten years to 2008 the Banks managed to ruin themselves and the institutions that had existed as safe deposit takers for hundreds of years.
I am not defending the idiots Blair and Brown or the FSA or the BoE. They were all complicit in the madness.
But the primary responsibility for the collapse of banking in 2008 must rest upon the Banks themselves. No one forced any of the Banks to lend.
The Banks decided to borrow short and lend long, relying on the money markets to fuel the gap. They stopped. The banks collapsed.
Whose fault would you like it to be?
I already stated it is a combination of everyones fault and always have done, bank and public included.
Again you are stating the no-one forced the banks to lend, yet now they are not lending to many people, you are stating a policy should be in force to get them to lend... you are going full circle to where it started again.
The government did a similar policy to get the banks to lend to people for mortgages, people messed up their finances and banks pay, Gordon Brown and Co, relaxed the regulations when in power so they pretty much did nothing as it was their cash cow that they cashed in on, if they didn't do that the regulations would have kept everyone safe, but they needed money to pay for their voters... Remove regulation and of course the banking industry is going to go do things it wasn't previously able to do due to regulations, but to relax them so much was in fact a mistake...
I will use the same argument that you use:
Government didn't need to relax the regulations so much, but they did and banks took advantage, therefore the government is at fault cause none forced them to relax the regulations did they?
Government got greedy and wanted cash ASAP...
Newc said:
Steffan said:
If the government removed the guarantee from all the Banks offered to depositors the entire banking industry would collapse forthwith.
This is true, and necessary, in every developed economy. Would you put your savings in a bank that didn't have deposit guarantees ? More importantly, how do you think interbank operations would work if every counterparty had to be credit risk assessed per transaction. You are an idiot and you continue to underline that with every statement you make.You are quite right. The Banks need the government.
That is why it is ludicrous for the government to be unable to get any reasonable response from the Banks on agreement on prudent lending to SME's within the UK.
Clearly you see no need for this. I think there is a desperate need.
Steffan said:
Newc said:
Steffan said:
If the government removed the guarantee from all the Banks offered to depositors the entire banking industry would collapse forthwith.
This is true, and necessary, in every developed economy. Would you put your savings in a bank that didn't have deposit guarantees ? More importantly, how do you think interbank operations would work if every counterparty had to be credit risk assessed per transaction. You are an idiot and you continue to underline that with every statement you make.You are quite right. The Banks need the government.
That is why it is ludicrous for the government to be unable to get any reasonable response from the Banks on agreement on prudent lending to SME's within the UK.
Clearly you see no need for this. I think there is a desperate need.
Are you one of the SME's which you say can't borrow?
Steffan said:
The Banks need the government.
This kind of emotive statement doesn't really mean much beyond 'the banking system relies on the BoE as a lender of last resort'. That's a given surely? I think we can all accept that the banking system relies on this setup. However, the next question is 'should the government be able to dictate the terms on which Banks lend to SMEs'?Steffan said:
That is why it is ludicrous for the government to be unable to get any reasonable response from the Banks on agreement on prudent lending to SME's within the UK.
I don't think anyone disagree with the general principle that 'sound businesses' should be able to borrow easily, and improvements in this area could be made. However, the reason we got into this whole was a combination of the following:-1. Excessively low interest rates set by the BoE - have we learnt from this?
2. Excessive lending from certain banks (which were perhaps given the nod from a hands-off regulator) - have we learnt from this?
Edit: fixed quotes.
Edited by fido on Wednesday 21st March 12:24
The biggest losers in the banking crisis have been the shareholders who have seen most and in a lot of cases all of their investment disappear. This includes hundreds of thousands of every day banking personnel, admininstrators, counter staff etc. These employees took profit sharing in shares and invested in Save as you earn schemes. They have they lost all of this, and a lot of them have lost their jobs as well. The taxpayer as stated above will make a healthy profit from this at the expense of the shareholders.
Soovy said:
Steffan said:
Newc said:
Steffan said:
If the government removed the guarantee from all the Banks offered to depositors the entire banking industry would collapse forthwith.
This is true, and necessary, in every developed economy. Would you put your savings in a bank that didn't have deposit guarantees ? More importantly, how do you think interbank operations would work if every counterparty had to be credit risk assessed per transaction. You are an idiot and you continue to underline that with every statement you make.You are quite right. The Banks need the government.
That is why it is ludicrous for the government to be unable to get any reasonable response from the Banks on agreement on prudent lending to SME's within the UK.
Clearly you see no need for this. I think there is a desperate need.
Are you one of the SME's which you say can't borrow?
However I do think that there is no hope of restoring any manufacturing within the UK without a more responsive and practical approach to SME borrowing within the UK.
The government have gone down the road of creating a society where large proportions of the population have never work, have no interest in work and will never work.
Whether this was by design is another question. In reality I think it was the unintended consequence of the Welfare state started in 1945 with the best of intentions. Like so many politicians initiatives the unintended consequence become the primary effect.
We need to reorganise and rebuild the requirement to work in the UK.
Individuals need the discipline of having to get up in the morning and get their family and themselves off to work. Bringing up children is a vital role. But it cannot remove the need to work.
I see the SME lending as part of that process. I would far rather it was achieved by rational discussion between the Bankers and government. It is obscene IMO that the taxpayer is the bulwark behind the entire banking system yer the pygmy government cannot get agreement to minimal lending to SME's which might reduce the taxpayers burden and increase the opportunity for gainful employment.
If you think that is all nonsense, so be it. That is my belief.
Steffan said:
Soovy said:
Steffan said:
Newc said:
Steffan said:
If the government removed the guarantee from all the Banks offered to depositors the entire banking industry would collapse forthwith.
This is true, and necessary, in every developed economy. Would you put your savings in a bank that didn't have deposit guarantees ? More importantly, how do you think interbank operations would work if every counterparty had to be credit risk assessed per transaction. You are an idiot and you continue to underline that with every statement you make.You are quite right. The Banks need the government.
That is why it is ludicrous for the government to be unable to get any reasonable response from the Banks on agreement on prudent lending to SME's within the UK.
Clearly you see no need for this. I think there is a desperate need.
Are you one of the SME's which you say can't borrow?
However I do think that there is no hope of restoring any manufacturing within the UK without a more responsive and practical approach to SME borrowing within the UK.
The government have gone down the road of creating a society where large proportions of the population have never work, have no interest in work and will never work.
Whether this was by design is another question. In reality I think it was the unintended consequence of the Welfare state started in 1945 with the best of intentions. Like so many politicians initiatives the unintended consequence become the primary effect.
We need to reorganise and rebuild the requirement to work in the UK.
Individuals need the discipline of having to get up in the morning and get their family and themselves off to work. Bringing up children is a vital role. But it cannot remove the need to work.
I see the SME lending as part of that process. I would far rather it was achieved by rational discussion between the Bankers and government. It is obscene IMO that the taxpayer is the bulwark behind the entire banking system yer the pygmy government cannot get agreement to minimal lending to SME's which might reduce the taxpayers burden and increase the opportunity for gainful employment.
If you think that is all nonsense, so be it. That is my belief.
This was intentionally done by Labour to create a state dependent feral underclass and large immigrant population who would always vote Labour to keep their benefits.
They so nearly got way with it too. Only Brown's leadsership made them unelectable and scuppered it.
Soovy said:
Steffan said:
Soovy said:
Steffan said:
Newc said:
Steffan said:
If the government removed the guarantee from all the Banks offered to depositors the entire banking industry would collapse forthwith.
This is true, and necessary, in every developed economy. Would you put your savings in a bank that didn't have deposit guarantees ? More importantly, how do you think interbank operations would work if every counterparty had to be credit risk assessed per transaction. You are an idiot and you continue to underline that with every statement you make.You are quite right. The Banks need the government.
That is why it is ludicrous for the government to be unable to get any reasonable response from the Banks on agreement on prudent lending to SME's within the UK.
Clearly you see no need for this. I think there is a desperate need.
Are you one of the SME's which you say can't borrow?
However I do think that there is no hope of restoring any manufacturing within the UK without a more responsive and practical approach to SME borrowing within the UK.
The government have gone down the road of creating a society where large proportions of the population have never work, have no interest in work and will never work.
Whether this was by design is another question. In reality I think it was the unintended consequence of the Welfare state started in 1945 with the best of intentions. Like so many politicians initiatives the unintended consequence become the primary effect.
We need to reorganise and rebuild the requirement to work in the UK.
Individuals need the discipline of having to get up in the morning and get their family and themselves off to work. Bringing up children is a vital role. But it cannot remove the need to work.
I see the SME lending as part of that process. I would far rather it was achieved by rational discussion between the Bankers and government. It is obscene IMO that the taxpayer is the bulwark behind the entire banking system yer the pygmy government cannot get agreement to minimal lending to SME's which might reduce the taxpayers burden and increase the opportunity for gainful employment.
If you think that is all nonsense, so be it. That is my belief.
This was intentionally done by Labour to create a state dependent feral underclass and large immigrant population who would always vote Labour to keep their benefits.
They so nearly got way with it too. Only Brown's leadsership made them unelectable and scuppered it.
There is a deliberate choice by Politicians primarily of left wing persuasion to create a federal underclass entirely dependent upon the state with no interest in work and no intention of ever working.
"Can be arsed" being the modern approach from the benefits society the New Labour party tried so hard to promote.
Not the slightest concern in New Labour for the taxpayer. They are tolerated as a necessary evil. To provide plenty of funding for the Benefit Society.
The hopes plans and future of New Labour is entirely focused on getting reelected so that they continue the good work. The Coalition is making the first tentative steps to stop this ludicrous unaffordable scamming but we need radical far reaching reduction in all level of benefits now.
The UK cannot afford this. One of the primary causes of government overborrowing.
My concern is firstly to force the majority of claimants into becoming aware of the need to work and really want to find a job.
Then to create sufficient job prospects within the UK to make this possible.
Hence my concern that the Banks are not supporting the SME funding requirement. This cannot be right given all that has gone on in Banking with the Taxpayer being the Knight in shining armour.
When RBS, Northern Rock and others were saved by the taxpayer the actual agreement was totally designed to support the Banks. There was never any commercial sense in the Taxpayer doing this. It was the philosophy of desperation emanating from the frantic efforts to save the entire Banking system.
Had the Taxpayer been doing something other than acting as the the lending in the last resort saviour, the deal would have been totally different. The deal was never a commercial deal it was desperation support and guarantees.
I therefore find the suggestion that the taxpayer will receive full value in the long term faint amusing.
We might but I doubt it. As the Northern Rock losses have so clearly shown there simply is not the value in these businesses that the Taxpayer saved from destruction.
But no commercial lender would have done what the taxpayer was forced to do in saving the Banks. To talk of fair value in that situation is ludicrous.
(Apologies for the moron comment BTW and thanks for NFTT.)
However, which bit of £11bn PROFIT are you struggling with?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17195562
The investment made was indeed to save the banks, but guess what, it turns out that it wasn't the worst time in the world to invest in a bank. Just ask Buffett and his Goldman investment!!
(Not sure about the other bail outs though; it just seems pretty clear that the tax payer did OK on the Northern Rock example.)
Also federal=/=feral. I am not sure if that is really a Freudian slip but it does seem somewhat appropriate!
Finally, you keep bleating on about the SMEs and how they can save us all from the feral underclass.
Why can't big business do that job? You know, the guys who banks ARE happy to lend to...
Obviously it needs to be a healthy mix of both but for a government to enforce banks to lower their lending standards just seems deeply irrational/forgetful to me.
You can blame the bankers, the regulators or the people who took the loans but it seems like there is a fairly strong consensus that SLACK LENDING STANDARDS CAUSED THE CREDIT CRUNCH!
We don't want to go back there..
However, which bit of £11bn PROFIT are you struggling with?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17195562
The investment made was indeed to save the banks, but guess what, it turns out that it wasn't the worst time in the world to invest in a bank. Just ask Buffett and his Goldman investment!!
(Not sure about the other bail outs though; it just seems pretty clear that the tax payer did OK on the Northern Rock example.)
Also federal=/=feral. I am not sure if that is really a Freudian slip but it does seem somewhat appropriate!
Finally, you keep bleating on about the SMEs and how they can save us all from the feral underclass.
Why can't big business do that job? You know, the guys who banks ARE happy to lend to...
Obviously it needs to be a healthy mix of both but for a government to enforce banks to lower their lending standards just seems deeply irrational/forgetful to me.
You can blame the bankers, the regulators or the people who took the loans but it seems like there is a fairly strong consensus that SLACK LENDING STANDARDS CAUSED THE CREDIT CRUNCH!
We don't want to go back there..
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff