The looney left

[NicD]

sidicks said:

NicD said:

Thats OK then, not.

I think you've missed the point (or at least the post to which I responded)

Plus of course national debt would have been (much) more than £40bn higher if the banks had not done their 'reckless' lending in the run up to the crisis..!

NiCD said:

Unlike the US, remind us how many of the chancers lost their jobs or were sent to gaol here?
And I don't mean the innocent who lost their jobs, I mean the big swinging dicks.

What crimes were committed to justify jail sentences?

Thats is part of the point, they perhaps were not 'crimes' here because the politicians had not made them so, back then. For whatever reason.
Even the NY States Attorney struggled with arrests.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prose...

That is nothing to be cheerful about.

[ruff'n'smov]

Gogoplata said:

gottans said:

You wouldn't run your own finances like that, well you shouldn't if you have any sense.

Unfortunately a lot of people do run their finances like that, certainly I know quite a few & you can guess which side of the political spectrum they vote...

You surely don't think because many, many people live on over draughts and the never never it will have a bearing on how they vote ???

[sidicks]

NicD said:

Thats is part of the point, they perhaps were not 'crimes' here because the politicians had not made them so, back then. For whatever reason.
Even the NY States Attorney struggled with arrests.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prose...

That is nothing to be cheerful about.

So what's your point?

You asked why people had not been sent to jail for NOT commiting crimes.

I simply explained that NOT commiting crimes isn't (currently) a jailable offence...!

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

NicD said:

You have your own ideas about responsibility, presumably you are in some way involved in City activities but don't presume we are all in agreement or know nothing about the subject.
I have no interest in a long running and fruitless debate.

You can't just ignore recorded facts if you don't like the implications!!

Having just returned from sunny climes its good to see the age old debate still raises its head occasionally.

I always considered the few remaining Mutual B.S. to be an ethical haven for my few pennies. Now looking at the C.E.O. salary at Nationwide B.S. it would appear that they are learning how to pig trough. Time to close accounts me thinks.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

Having just returned from sunny climes its good to see the age old debate still raises its head occasionally.

I always considered the few remaining Mutual B.S. to be an ethical haven for my few pennies. Now looking at the C.E.O. salary at Nationwide B.S. it would appear that they are learning how to pig trough. Time to close accounts me thinks.

How did that work for Co-Op?

[anonymous-user]

When did £125bn =$85bn?

[NicD]

sidicks said:

So what's your point?

You asked why people had not been sent to jail for NOT commiting crimes.

I simply explained that NOT commiting crimes isn't (currently) a jailable offence...!

No, I asked how many had been jailed. That goes a lot further than committing indictable crimes.
Make a joke of it if you want.

[sidicks]

NicD said:

No, I asked how many had been jailed. That goes a lot further than committing indictable crimes.
Make a joke of it if you want.

Why do you think people should be jailed if they HAVEN'T committed a crime?

[NicD]

sidicks said:

Why do you think people should be jailed if they HAVEN'T committed a crime?

You need to look a little further ahead. Many SHOULD have been jailed. That they could not be is something to be ashamed of.
Belatedly, the FCA is now laying some of the foundations for corporate responsibility.

[sidicks]

NicD said:

You need to look a little further ahead. Many SHOULD have been jailed. That they could not be is something to be ashamed of.
Belatedly, the FCA is now laying some of the foundations for corporate responsibility.

Which rules are being changes that would now send these people to jail?

[turbobloke]

sidicks said:

NicD said:

You need to look a little further ahead. Many SHOULD have been jailed. That they could not be is something to be ashamed of.
Belatedly, the FCA is now laying some of the foundations for corporate responsibility.

Which rules are being changed that would now send these people to jail?

Also you have to wonder if the supposed prosecutions - under whatever changes would now send people to jail - will apply to any of the 100,000+ finance workers in London who lost their jobs post-crunch, many of them without a dick to swing...and what criteria for targeting them will apply.

[handpaper]

NicD said:

You have your own ideas about responsibility, presumably you are in some way involved in City activities but don't presume we are all in agreement or know nothing about the subject.
I have no interest in a long running and fruitless debate.

I drove an artic through the City at 0500 last Thursday, that's about as close as I get to working there.
It is not necessary to be wealthy to be financially literate; I would hold the opinions I do if I earned half my current salary.

Sorry, I just remembered - my brother-in-law cleans the windows of the Shard. I'm obviously a complete spiv; ignore me

[sidicks]

handpaper said:

I drove an artic through the City at 0500 last Thursday, that's about as close as I get to working there.
It is not necessary to be wealthy to be financially literate; I would hold the opinions I do if I earned half my current salary.

Sorry, I just remembered - my brother-in-law cleans the windows of the Shard. I'm obviously a complete spiv; ignore me

[Snozzwangler]

crankedup said:

Having just returned from sunny climes its good to see the age old debate still raises its head occasionally.

I always considered the few remaining Mutual B.S. to be an ethical haven for my few pennies. Now looking at the C.E.O. salary at Nationwide B.S. it would appear that they are learning how to pig trough. Time to close accounts me thinks.

There's a mutual which has a top salary of £29k for all staff if that helps

[mybrainhurts]

Chlamydia said:

Jimbo0912 said:

Gargamel said:

That's what I said....

You cannot print your way out of trouble forever.

wking your supposed intellect in public and assuming others are ignorant, is an "interesting" posting style.

And well done for reading "serious" studies. I only ever read the ones with pictures.

Typical rude response on here. You used hyperinflation examples which aren't remotely relevant to domestic spending/public debts. For there to be hyperinflation there has to be a combination of all the factors I previously mentioned (foreign debt payment, currency depreciation, & money creation).

Public debt isn't a major issue especially compared to private debt. The end.

I don't normally do this, but you're seriously going to call other people rude because they don't agree with you? How's this little selection from just one thread:

Jimbo0912 said:

For all the Clarkson bum chums on here...

Jimbo0912 said:

Seriously though, your response is actually the most idiotic I've seen in this 250+page thread which is a winning achievement! Well done.

Jimbo0912 said:

You pretty much intimated that the BBC were at fault for what happened which is absolutely and completely retarded.

Jimbo0912 said:

Deary me. You're a pedantic, hysterical winner who can't spell or even write a semi-coherent sentence. I feel sorry for you.

Jimbo0912 said:

...you're a brain dead retard for even suggesting it...

Jimbo0912 said:

To be brutally honest though, I've neither the time nor the inclination to respond to any of your idiotic posts in future.

Jimbo0912 said:

This thread and some of the idiots posting on here can be summarised as follows

He does get into a tizz, doesn't he? Glad I'm not his cat...

[Andy Zarse]

crankedup said:

sidicks said:

NicD said:

You have your own ideas about responsibility, presumably you are in some way involved in City activities but don't presume we are all in agreement or know nothing about the subject.
I have no interest in a long running and fruitless debate.

You can't just ignore recorded facts if you don't like the implications!!

Having just returned from sunny climes its good to see the age old debate still raises its head occasionally.

I always considered the few remaining Mutual B.S. to be an ethical haven for my few pennies. Now looking at the C.E.O. salary at Nationwide B.S. it would appear that they are learning how to pig trough. Time to close accounts me thinks.

I'm sure a few years ago you admitted to carpet-bagging your previous mutuals. No luck this time huh?!

[legzr1]

gottans said:

When did £125bn =$85bn?

When it suits an argument.

[sidicks]

legzr1 said:

When it suits an argument.

Or when it's a genuine mistake that doesn't affect the argument to any great degree, confirm that Jimbo0912 was talking bks.

HTH

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

Having just returned from sunny climes its good to see the age old debate still raises its head occasionally.

I always considered the few remaining Mutual B.S. to be an ethical haven for my few pennies. Now looking at the C.E.O. salary at Nationwide B.S. it would appear that they are learning how to pig trough. Time to close accounts me thinks.

How did that work for Co-Op?

Indeed Sidicks, indeed. Fairly well destroyed my faith and confidence in all financial institutions, certainly the Co-Op. Looking at investment rates and the conduct of so many 'professionals' within these institutions the alternative investments have been offering far higher returns, albeit riskier.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

Indeed Sidicks, indeed. Fairly well destroyed my faith and confidence in all financial institutions, certainly the Co-Op. Looking at investment rates and the conduct of so many 'professionals' within these institutions the alternative investments have been offering far higher returns, albeit riskier.

The trouble is that people think that higher risk equals higher returns, when in fact it is higher risk equals the potential for higher returns (but also the potential for lower (negative) returns too!