The Banks Never Lose
Discussion
Hedders said:
How so?
Sensationalist. One-sided drivel.It's all the banks fault, bla bla bla, they made you borrow too much. In fact they pointed a gun to your head and made you take out that unaffordable loan. All they care about is making money - i mean what a way to run a company - trying to make money.
This programme was even worse than the last one, forcing me to watch Fifth Gear.
Ok, the board of NR don't deserve a penny. Neither should the Nationwide chairman who i notice has given himself a £750k payrise.
Edited by fido on Monday 25th August 21:04
One-sided because the other side wouldn't appear (and please don't quote Angela Knight - she works on behalf of the banks, not for them )
By the way, the gullible borrowers only took the money because it was being offered to them.
Edited for typos.
By the way, the gullible borrowers only took the money because it was being offered to them.
Edited for typos.
Edited by audidoody on Monday 25th August 21:10
Hedders said:
They are the experts! Are you blaming the people they lent money too???
They are experts at making money for themselves (and their employees). Obviously the borrowers are on the other side of the equation - they only care if they loose money overall, not if individuals can't afford to repay the loan. Obviously some people will default - that's a fact of life.
Edited by fido on Monday 25th August 21:11
king ugly women blammed the banks for her sturggling so much! Its your fault you stupid wGT196 said:
We have developed a celebrity obsessed culture of mediocrity where nobody will take responsibility for their own actions. In my experience, if people work hard, they are rewarded. Nobody is forced to take loans from these banks and nobody is excluded from working for them either.
I don't quite follow your argument. You appear to be arguing FOR the banks. You say nobody will take responsibility for their own actions. Yet that was exactly the point the programme was making. Nobody (at the banks and in Govt) will take responsibility for their actions. GT196 said:
We have developed a celebrity obsessed culture of mediocrity where nobody will take responsibility for their own actions. In my experience, if people work hard, they are rewarded. Nobody is forced to take loans from these banks and nobody is excluded from working for them either.
I agree they showed two people who simply borrowed too much and I agree with taking responsibility for ones actions but this is largely due to the cost of housing which has got out of control for the average person in society. What is out of order is that we have allowed the country to become reliant on the financial services and thus when it goes in the red, the tax payer is having to foot the bill making the whole situation worse. All this while big bonuses are still being handed out which in most businesses would be put to paying off debt as a priority.
If people work hard they are rewarded.... yes they are, they get paid at the end of the month, this is the reality for the majority
Can you see why it might irritate some?
GT196 said:
What a load of drivel.
It was complete and utter rubbish.I don't even know where to start picking holes in it.
I mean, someone who takes out a 125% mortgage and is currently on 7.5% and thinking that rate is high. Retard.
Going along to banks without a meeting booked. That silly little antic is nowadays a hallmark of a low budget, pointless show which desperately needs to fabricate negativity to its predetermined view.
Talking about salaries of some of the top people in the global banking business without making reference to what their opposites get paid in other major financial centres.
Trying to make out that City traders are the same as highstreet bankers.
What is the point in paying a presenter who used to be in banking and refused to bring any of his expertise or understanding to the party!!!!
Tabloid drivel for the mentally retarded.
Of course people need to be respnsible for their own actions - especially individuals who are borrowing large sums of money.
But it has to be said that the banks have had a large part to play in the culture and atmosphere that enables people to borrow beyond their means. A large number of the people who are now finding themselves in trouble would simply not have been able to take out a mortgage on times past. The banks would have considered them bad risks and would not have lent to them.
In more recent times, the banks had become greedy (based on their bonus culture and shareholder pressure) and had lowered their borrowing criteria to such an extent that individuals who patently should not have been lent anything received loans very easilly. Indeed, the whole property industry was propped up by such "easy money".
Although the programme was pretty fascile and simplistic in its approach, the basic message was,"Why do banks resent government interference when they are doing well but are keen for government (i.e. taxpayers') assistance when times are bad - and yet their CEO's still seem to reward themselves with enormous bonuses?"
Those points were valid - but the programme was very much a dumbed down production.
But it has to be said that the banks have had a large part to play in the culture and atmosphere that enables people to borrow beyond their means. A large number of the people who are now finding themselves in trouble would simply not have been able to take out a mortgage on times past. The banks would have considered them bad risks and would not have lent to them.
In more recent times, the banks had become greedy (based on their bonus culture and shareholder pressure) and had lowered their borrowing criteria to such an extent that individuals who patently should not have been lent anything received loans very easilly. Indeed, the whole property industry was propped up by such "easy money".
Although the programme was pretty fascile and simplistic in its approach, the basic message was,"Why do banks resent government interference when they are doing well but are keen for government (i.e. taxpayers') assistance when times are bad - and yet their CEO's still seem to reward themselves with enormous bonuses?"
Those points were valid - but the programme was very much a dumbed down production.
Eric Mc said:
Of course people need to be respnsible for their own actions - especially individuals who are borrowing large sums of money.
But it has to be said that New Labour have had a large part to play in the culture and atmosphere that enables people to borrow beyond their means.
EFA. But it has to be said that New Labour have had a large part to play in the culture and atmosphere that enables people to borrow beyond their means.
Banks and borrowers are equally to blame.
Banks for not showing for contraint in lending, for not attempting to stick to a sustainable lending strategy, for not being responsible lenders, for going for short term profit over long term profit.
Borrowers for not properly taking account of what they could afford and taking account of future downturns.
Banks cant live without the borrowers, and borrowers cant live without the banks. You cant seperate the two and neither can you blame one without blaming the other.
Banks for not showing for contraint in lending, for not attempting to stick to a sustainable lending strategy, for not being responsible lenders, for going for short term profit over long term profit.
Borrowers for not properly taking account of what they could afford and taking account of future downturns.
Banks cant live without the borrowers, and borrowers cant live without the banks. You cant seperate the two and neither can you blame one without blaming the other.
There're two different situations here, if the banks are offering "free financial advice" and then advising people to borrow more than they can afford, then it's reasonable to hold them largely responsible for the problems - most people simply aren't knowledgeable (or intelligent) enough to work it out for themselves and yes, they are naive enough to believe it when told that they are getting "independent financial advice".
If the banks are just selling products and making no pretense at anything else, then I don't really see how it's different from any other industry.
If the banks are just selling products and making no pretense at anything else, then I don't really see how it's different from any other industry.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff