It's socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest of us

[sidicks]

Hackney said:

And this post proves my point

The fact that you think 'this proves your point' just goes to show how incredibly ignorant you are about the whole bank bailout episode. And evidently about so much else.

[sidicks]

Hackney said:

No irony at all.
Billions lost to companies, one billion to benefit fraud. Why does the right wing (press) focus on benefit fraud when there are billions to go after in corporate fraud? The article isn't suggesting we don't target benefit fraudsters and neither am I

Nothing is lost through tax avoidance as that tax was never due. Evasion on the other hand....

[Hackney]

sidicks said:

Nothing is lost through tax avoidance as that tax was never due. Evasion on the other hand....

Of course, my mistake. Thanks

[Hackney]

sidicks said:

Hackney said:

And this post proves my point

The fact that you think 'this proves your point' just goes to show how incredibly ignorant you are about the whole bank bailout episode. And evidently about so much else.

Nope.
"This post" referred to the post I quoted, which questioned the value of the bailout, specifically "The figures is now quite a lot lower".

[Hackney]

graphene said:

Yes, dumbness abounds. Thankfully, it is considerably less destructive than delusion.

Your posts seem to have drifted in to centering on yourself, rather the discussion topic of the thread.

You mean it's not all about me?
God I'd make a rubbish communist.

[sidicks]

Hackney said:

Nope.
"This post" referred to the post I quoted, which questioned the value of the bailout, specifically "The figures is now quite a lot lower".

But if you understood the issues you'd see that doesn't support your case!

[XM5ER]

Hackney said:

XM5ER said:

Hackney said:

Marx's quote is completely invalidated to you because there have been some right bd communists.
As I said, does that mean the Volkswagen was a bad idea because Hitler had it?

Conflated stupidity. 94million dead and we're talking about VW and a few bad apples, are you insane?

Hitler was a "bad apple"? Are you?

You know full well I was referring to your "right bstard communists". Your right bstard communists were/are brutal dictators just like Hitler. You brought up VW for some bizarre reason, I'm pretty sure it wasn't Hitlers personal idea, possibly Ferdinand Porsche's. I'm also pretty sure that Hitler borrowed a few ideas from Marx, like nationalizing an industry to make folks car.

Your problem is that you only see the world in left vs right terms, in reality (as demonstrated by history) right and left are almost identical in modus operandi and outcome. Libertarian capitalism is utterly divorced from those collectivist ideologies.

Stop trolling and go and read a book.

[crankedup]

chris watton said:

crankedup said:

We agree, I would also add Thatcher into the mix with the introduction of de-regulation, then helped on by successive Governments. I recall much talk of Global Markets, perhaps we cannot survive without but then this Market has not helped us, much because we loved importing!

Good points.

Also - I must apologise for any personal dig at you in my earlier posts, they were uncalled for, and just because we don't agree on political issues, that shouldn't mean we trade silly insults. none of us are perfect, least of all me!

Thank you, we all get a bit edgy from time to time and I'm as guilty as any other person. The old adage 'never discuss Religion or Politics' has a very sound basis to it. I would certainly enjoy a pint with you and any other poster on this forum. Not sure about Turbo though

[anonymous-user]

Hackney said:

And this post proves my point

Mrr T said:

fblm said:

Hackney said:

1. How much then? From where? Because there's no doubt that the banks were bailed out.

£123bn. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check-...

You may not have noticed the date on the article is 2011.

The figures is now quite a lot lower. The Government subscribed for Lloyds shares at 74.50 and they are now above that. RBS are still some way below the subscription value but are 50% higher than the prices used in the article.

The only thing this 'proves' is that you were even more wrong about the cost of the bailouts

[sidicks]

fblm said:

The only thing this 'proves' is that you were even more wrong about the cost of the bailouts

It's nice when people use 'evidence' to support their claims that actually contradicts the point being made.
Priceless!!

[Hackney]

fblm said:

Hackney said:

And this post proves my point

Mrr T said:

fblm said:

Hackney said:

1. How much then? From where? Because there's no doubt that the banks were bailed out.

£123bn. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check-...

You may not have noticed the date on the article is 2011.

The figures is now quite a lot lower. The Government subscribed for Lloyds shares at 74.50 and they are now above that. RBS are still some way below the subscription value but are 50% higher than the prices used in the article.

The only thing this 'proves' is that you were even more wrong about the cost of the bailouts

How can I be wrong about the cost of the bailout when I never stated a value?
The very reason I never stated a value being because someone will always have a contradictory value.

[anonymous-user]

Hackney said:

How can I be wrong about the cost of the bailout when I never stated a value?

Hackney said:

The banks [b]did[/] receive a bailout then? Of an only slightly less hideous amount than the article quoted? Yes?

No. Almost an order of magnitude less hideous.

[sidicks]

Hackney said:

How can I be wrong about the cost of the bailout when I never stated a value?
The very reason I never stated a value being because someone will always have a contradictory value.

The exact number isn't important.

Having a basic understand of the ballpark that number lies in, and importantly how it is made up is very important if you want to have a sensible discussion about it. Also having a basic understanding about economics and finance is also a pre-requisite for such a dialogue.

Your posts on this topic suggest that you have neither.

[Hackney]

sidicks said:

Hackney said:

How can I be wrong about the cost of the bailout when I never stated a value?
The very reason I never stated a value being because someone will always have a contradictory value.

The exact number isn't important.

Having a basic understand of the ballpark that number lies in, and importantly how it is made up is very important if you want to have a sensible discussion about it. Also having a basic understanding about economics and finance is also a pre-requisite for such a dialogue.

Your posts on this topic suggest that you have neither.

sidicks, allow me to refresh your memory.

Hackney said:

sidicks said:

vonuber said:

Thoughts?

Lot's of fallacies and inaccuracies and manipulation of the truth:

1. More than £1tn of public money was poured into the banks following the financial collapse

No it wasn't.

1. How much then? From where? Because there's no doubt that the banks were bailed out.

Edited by Hackney on Thursday 4th September 11:18

Vonuber quoted the £1Tr from the article
Sidicks said "no it wasn't" - a more full and comprehensive answer you'll be hard pushed to find
Hackney asks, "how much"

From then on sidicks repeatedly tells me I'm wrong about the value of the bailout and I have no understanding of economics and finance

[Rovinghawk]

Hackney said:

Vonuber quoted the £1Tr from the article
Sidicks said "no it wasn't" - a more full and comprehensive answer you'll be hard pushed to find
Hackney asks, "how much"

From then on sidicks repeatedly tells me I'm wrong about the value of the bailout and I have no understanding of economics and finance

Without disputing/debating the exact figure, just because an amount of money went in doesn't mean it's lost. Much of that money is recoverable, there is a possibility of a profit on the deal.

Stating that money was poured in isn't telling the whole story.

[crankedup]

The only reason any banks were bailed by Government was the intention of preventing 'a run' on the banks which would have had financial consequences which wouldn't bear thinking about. Notions of to big to fail which led to considerations of breaking the huge banks down into separate trading entities. Something like that, its all going into the mists of time, until the next crisis.

[sidicks]

Hackney said:

Vonuber quoted the £1Tr from the article
Sidicks said "no it wasn't" - a more full and comprehensive answer you'll be hard pushed to find
Hackney asks, "how much"

From then on sidicks repeatedly tells me I'm wrong about the value of the bailout and I have no understanding of economics and finance

You clearly don't understand the difference between bailouts and guarantees.
You clearly understand the difference between £100bn and £1,000bn (and most importantly the size if this number in the context of GDP etc)
You weren't able to review the article provided by Vonuber and understand why it was wrong.

You just want to have a rant about the banks without understanding any of the issues, but you've come to the wrong place for ill-informed ranting!!

That's why you're still trying to dredge up bailout data from the past!

Anyone who really wanted a sensible discussion would have done a minimal amount of investigation first!

Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 10th September 14:10

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

Hackney said:

Vonuber quoted the £1Tr from the article
Sidicks said "no it wasn't" - a more full and comprehensive answer you'll be hard pushed to find
Hackney asks, "how much"

From then on sidicks repeatedly tells me I'm wrong about the value of the bailout and I have no understanding of economics and finance

You clearly don't understand the difference between bailouts and guarantees.
You clearly understand the difference between £100bn and £1,000bn (and most importantly the size if this number in the context of GDP etc)
You weren't able to review the article provided by Vonuber and understand why it was wrong.

You just want to have a rant about the banks without understanding any of the issues, but you've come to the wrong place for ill-informed ranting!!

That's why you're still trying to dredge up bailout data from the past!

Anyone who really wanted a sensible discussion would have done a minimal amount of investigation first!

Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 10th September 14:10

TBF I quoted that well known source from the tele documentary, it provided a forensic analysis of the banking sector crisis of 2007/8. Really very informative, yet this was discounted as simply one television program and therefore somehow not valid! (Not by your goodself I would add).

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

TBF I quoted that well known source from the tele documentary, it provided a forensic analysis of the banking sector crisis of 2007/8. Really very informative, yet this was discounted as simply one television program and therefore somehow not valid! (Not by your goodself I would add).

Plenty of 'well-known sources' have presented very misleading commentaries on the bank bailouts to try and tap into the 'Bash a banker' mentality that existed at the time.

Looking at the potential cost of the bailouts - assume ALL guarantees / liabilities come home to roost and that all assets are worth ZERO was a standard approach, but obviously meaningless for anyone with a modicum of common sense or economic rationality (note that I'm not including Owen Jones here)...

[turbobloke]

crankedup said:

sidicks said:

Hackney said:

Vonuber quoted the £1Tr from the article
Sidicks said "no it wasn't" - a more full and comprehensive answer you'll be hard pushed to find
Hackney asks, "how much"

From then on sidicks repeatedly tells me I'm wrong about the value of the bailout and I have no understanding of economics and finance

You clearly don't understand the difference between bailouts and guarantees.
You clearly understand the difference between £100bn and £1,000bn (and most importantly the size if this number in the context of GDP etc)
You weren't able to review the article provided by Vonuber and understand why it was wrong.

You just want to have a rant about the banks without understanding any of the issues, but you've come to the wrong place for ill-informed ranting!!

That's why you're still trying to dredge up bailout data from the past!

Anyone who really wanted a sensible discussion would have done a minimal amount of investigation first!

Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 10th September 14:10

TBF I quoted that well known source from the tele documentary, it provided a forensic analysis of the banking sector crisis of 2007/8. Really very informative, yet this was discounted as simply one television program and therefore somehow not valid! (Not by your goodself I would add).

Not by me either but what was in it had been posted in PH crunch and crash threads. What were the tricky to spot new bits we'd never seen before?