Russell Brand v The Sun

[bodhi]

So he's ignored most of the points made by Jo and gone for his standard "Hang the Bankers" rant. Can't say I'm shocked.

[FredClogs]

bodhi said:

So he's ignored most of the points made by Jo and gone for his standard "Hang the Bankers" rant. Can't say I'm shocked.

Yeah, but he's right isn't he?

[legzr1]

FredClogs said:

Yeah, but he's right isn't he?

Not sure if this is a right/wrong argument but some of those figures should make even the average PH Brand-hater sit up and take notice.

[bodhi]

FredClogs said:

Yeah, but he's right isn't he?

Jo is, yes. When RBS gets sold the taxpayer stands to get a pretty good return on their investment, certainly much better than all the Foreign Aid and Green Subsidies we are pissing up the wall. Brand also seems very quiet on Hollywood Accounting, and of course, the slight issue that he turned up to the wrong RBS building.

He also seems to keep going on about "Austerity Cuts". From what I can see of the deficit, there haven't really been any?

[Sarkmeister]

"nicked the odd bottle of water or a stray pair of trainers?"

Ever so slight understatement. Didnt the rioters burn down a furniture business that had been going for generations?

I used to like Russell Brand, but not any more. He probably has a point with some of his rants, but it is well hidden behind him trying to sound clever. At no point above does he actual answer any of Jo's questions/points.

[turbobloke]

FredClogs said:

bodhi said:

So he's ignored most of the points made by Jo and gone for his standard "Hang the Bankers" rant. Can't say I'm shocked.

Yeah, but he's right isn't he?

No...the false claim at the heart of his reply "economic crises caused by the banking industry" should read "economic crisis caused by Clinton's egalitarian delusion and propagated by ratings agencies, some banks and inept government regulatory systems".

Either way, given his rants on 'bankers' and tax avoidance, was it OK for RB to finance his moviemaking with £1m raised from a group of City-based investors who will benefit from EIS tax avoidance?

Or is that the H word?

[The Don of Croy]

FredClogs said:

bodhi said:

So he's ignored most of the points made by Jo and gone for his standard "Hang the Bankers" rant. Can't say I'm shocked.

Yeah, but he's right isn't he?

Without a doubt the world would be a different place if we hung all the banksters tomorrow. Followed by - logically - anybody else who commands above average returns for knowledge based output. (It's not as if a bankster ever MADE anything, is it? But comedians and social commentators are a different case entirely.)

[tuffer]

I wonder where Russell Brand keeps all his money? I wonder if that money is invested and providing him with some interest?

[TTwiggy]

tuffer said:

I wonder where Russell Brand keeps all his money? I wonder if that money is invested and providing him with some interest?

Yeah! And I bet he buys food from a BIG SUPERMARKET!!! too... what a .

[tangerine_sedge]

But, ignoring all the peripheral arguments, doesn't he have a very good point?

The financial system(*) (through greed, rule breaking and weak governance) caused the financial meltdown, but have gotten away pretty much scot-free, whilst everyone else pays for it? Besides universal hatred, they've still got their fat pensions, bonuses and country houses whilst the weakest in society get squeezed.

(*) I'm aware that 99% of people who work in the financial arena are not at fault, but bad controls and practices instigated by the other 1% is what lead to this.

[Du1point8]

tangerine_sedge said:

But, ignoring all the peripheral arguments, doesn't he have a very good point?

The financial system(*) (through greed, rule breaking and weak governance) caused the financial meltdown, but have gotten away pretty much scot-free, whilst everyone else pays for it? Besides universal hatred, they've still got their fat pensions, bonuses and country houses whilst the weakest in society get squeezed.

(*) I'm aware that 99% of people who work in the financial arena are not at fault, but bad controls and practices instigated by the other 1% is what lead to this.

The people that caused this are not the high end bonus people in their country houses you think they are.

It was the retail arm of the banks that gave out mortgages like sweets to people who couldn't pay (fraudulent falsified pay) and forced to by the government.

This over exposure to those toxic debts/buying of bad banks under government advice in the UK cause the bail outs to most of the retail banks with no investment departments (RBS aside but they are not really active traders).

Yet its those hedge funds and traders that are being persecuted as people like yourself dont want to know and assume all bankers are the same.

How about reading up on the causes and making your own mind up instead of blaming 'bankers' with the same blanket statements of they are all the same?

[chris watton]

Du1point8 said:

tangerine_sedge said:

But, ignoring all the peripheral arguments, doesn't he have a very good point?

The financial system(*) (through greed, rule breaking and weak governance) caused the financial meltdown, but have gotten away pretty much scot-free, whilst everyone else pays for it? Besides universal hatred, they've still got their fat pensions, bonuses and country houses whilst the weakest in society get squeezed.

(*) I'm aware that 99% of people who work in the financial arena are not at fault, but bad controls and practices instigated by the other 1% is what lead to this.

The people that caused this are not the high end bonus people in their country houses you think they are.

It was the retail arm of the banks that gave out mortgages like sweets to people who couldn't pay (fraudulent falsified pay) and forced to by the government.

This over exposure to those toxic debts/buying of bad banks under government advice in the UK cause the bail outs to most of the retail banks with no investment departments (RBS aside but they are not really active traders).

Yet its those hedge funds and traders that are being persecuted as people like yourself dont want to know and assume all bankers are the same.

How about reading up on the causes and making your own mind up instead of blaming 'bankers' with the same blanket statements of they are all the same?

I would imagine that, for most, that would be difficult, as it would mean weaning themselves off the BBC televisual diet and seeking the real truth behind the silly headlines...

It seems that today's MSM is to news what Wikipedia has become for 'facts'

[TTwiggy]

How many UK mortgages were defaulted on? I'm not aware of wholesale repossessions (such as we saw in the early 1990s).

Edited to add: what you're saying sounds rather like 'victim blaming'

[Du1point8]

TTwiggy said:

How many UK mortgages were defaulted on? I'm not aware of wholesale repossessions (such as we saw in the early 1990s).

Just for you:

Northern rock was screwed because its business model was flawed as a lending bank other than in a rocketing housing market. Not at all to do with Investment banking.

Lloyds was fine other than Winky forcing them to do a deal in minutes whilst conveniently not telling them the state of the HBOS resi portfolio - again nothing to do with Investment Banking.

RBS was special. It was caused by Scottish arrogance and a refusal to listen to the people In Risk. The actual catalyst for their downfall was the way there paying so much for ABN AMRO without knowing what toxic rubbish was in ABN. There was a reason why Barclays pulled out of the deal, toxic rubbish and listening to their risk people.

The UK failed because of poor quality lending on residential lending and an inability to have a stable funding model which resulted in many smaller banks and building societies failing.

The co-op has its own special way to do things, yet another non investment bank.

[TTwiggy]

Du1point8 said:

TTwiggy said:

How many UK mortgages were defaulted on? I'm not aware of wholesale repossessions (such as we saw in the early 1990s).

Just for you:

Northern rock was screwed because its business model was flawed as a lending bank other than in a rocketing housing market. Not at all to do with Investment banking.

Lloyds was fine other than Winky forcing them to do a deal in minutes whilst conveniently not telling them the state of the HBOS resi portfolio - again nothing to do with Investment Banking.

RBS was special. It was caused by Scottish arrogance and a refusal to listen to the people In Risk. The actual catalyst for their downfall was the way there paying so much for ABN AMRO without knowing what toxic rubbish was in ABN. There was a reason why Barclays pulled out of the deal, toxic rubbish and listening to their risk people.

The UK failed because of poor quality lending on residential lending and an inability to have a stable funding model which resulted in many smaller banks and building societies failing.

The co-op has its own special way to do things, yet another non investment bank.

But not actually from the proles defaulting on their mortgages then?

[Du1point8]

TTwiggy said:

Du1point8 said:

TTwiggy said:

How many UK mortgages were defaulted on? I'm not aware of wholesale repossessions (such as we saw in the early 1990s).

Just for you:

Northern rock was screwed because its business model was flawed as a lending bank other than in a rocketing housing market. Not at all to do with Investment banking.

Lloyds was fine other than Winky forcing them to do a deal in minutes whilst conveniently not telling them the state of the HBOS resi portfolio - again nothing to do with Investment Banking.

RBS was special. It was caused by Scottish arrogance and a refusal to listen to the people In Risk. The actual catalyst for their downfall was the way there paying so much for ABN AMRO without knowing what toxic rubbish was in ABN. There was a reason why Barclays pulled out of the deal, toxic rubbish and listening to their risk people.

The UK failed because of poor quality lending on residential lending and an inability to have a stable funding model which resulted in many smaller banks and building societies failing.

The co-op has its own special way to do things, yet another non investment bank.

But not actually from the proles defaulting on their mortgages then?

Its going to be easier to ask you this instead, as Im not getting into a long boring discussion about who defaulted, who didn't and you coming back and saying its not the victims fault they lied, still the banks, blah, blah, blah...

Simply put, do you think its fair that traders and hedge funds being penalised for some other persons screw up, by way of stealing their hard earned money under the guise of they are bankers, so its their fault?

If so why? They were not involved in retail side that effectively blew up and was the crisis.

[legzr1]

TTwiggy said:

But not actually from the proles defaulting on their mortgages then?

I'll answer with an answer rather than answering with further diversionary question(s).


No.

But...

[hornet]

turbobloke said:

Either way, given his rants on 'bankers' and tax avoidance, was it OK for RB to finance his moviemaking with £1m raised from a group of City-based investors who will benefit from EIS tax avoidance?

Or is that the H word?

I do wonder how much revenue his YouTube channel generates (for him and Google) and how that squares with his views on tax avoidance? If he wants change, why not support an alternative open source platform?

[tangerine_sedge]

Du1point8 said:

tangerine_sedge said:

But, ignoring all the peripheral arguments, doesn't he have a very good point?

The financial system(*) (through greed, rule breaking and weak governance) caused the financial meltdown, but have gotten away pretty much scot-free, whilst everyone else pays for it? Besides universal hatred, they've still got their fat pensions, bonuses and country houses whilst the weakest in society get squeezed.

(*) I'm aware that 99% of people who work in the financial arena are not at fault, but bad controls and practices instigated by the other 1% is what lead to this.

The people that caused this are not the high end bonus people in their country houses you think they are.

It was the retail arm of the banks that gave out mortgages like sweets to people who couldn't pay (fraudulent falsified pay) and forced to by the government.

This over exposure to those toxic debts/buying of bad banks under government advice in the UK cause the bail outs to most of the retail banks with no investment departments (RBS aside but they are not really active traders).

Yet its those hedge funds and traders that are being persecuted as people like yourself dont want to know and assume all bankers are the same.

How about reading up on the causes and making your own mind up instead of blaming 'bankers' with the same blanket statements of they are all the same?

I said "financial systems", not investment bankers. Some people, somewhere in the "financial system" made some bad(*) choices, yet others are expected to pay for it (including the tarred with the same brush investment types)?

(*) bad for other people, good for them, as they seem to have made money and got away with it.

[The Don of Croy]

For the real meat in the financial meltdown story you need to look at the USA record on lending to bad risk mortgagees and the role played by enthusiasts for 'equality' at any price...the community organisers that applied political pressure to get the gubbermint to force lenders to lend...it all ends in tears (and more money chasing bad loans).

It isn't the full sorry tale, but it did have a mighty big effect.