Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Apparently, in order to prevent another banking crisis the people - you - will have to fork out, perhaps, another £1000 to the banks, despite the fact that they have ran-off with big bonuses, as we already know. You may think that this is unfair.

    I think we should pay them. In fact, you have no choice.

    And if this should happen, and I hope it does, you will know just how much you've brought it on yourselves.

    Unfair? No. It is 100% fair.

    You let them walk all over you. Therefore when they take 100% you make it justified, and they feel justified in taking it.

    You think it is immoral. But this is banking. It is not religion.

    There is no immorality or morality in banking. It is do what thou wilt. Ultimately, you have no choice. You let them and you will let them again.

    Each time they take, they take it righfully because you've essentially allowed them to. Only your moral indignation against them gets in the way of what is right.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    This is the first ive heared of this? ...
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Well this depends on what the consequences of not baling them out would be.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think you need to stop reading the Daily Fail
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    Firstly I think you've made this up.
    Secondly the government now has shares in the banks they bailed out, we didn't just give them free money.
    Thirdly £1000, oh noes.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Well this depends on what the consequences of not baling them out would be.
    What consequences?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leetay)
    I think you need to stop reading the Daily Fail
    I don't read Newspapers. I got the information from The Wright Stuff this morning. Now, it might not be true, but it was mentioned that the banks may need to be bailed out again to the tune of a £1000 each just incase of another crisis.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The banks are all in profit again though???
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    I don't read Newspapers. I got the information from The Wright Stuff this morning. Now, it might not be true, but it was mentioned that the banks may need to be bailed out again to the tune of a £1000 each just incase of another crisis.
    Dude wtf are you on about £1000 per bank? That is literally nothing..
    Unless you mean '£1000 per person in the country' in which case you're just being ridiculous.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    I don't read Newspapers. I got the information from The Wright Stuff this morning. Now, it might not be true, but it was mentioned that the banks may need to be bailed out again to the tune of a £1000 each just incase of another crisis.
    Well I didn't see the programme but if that's what they said then they are being extremely misleading.

    The reason I said you should stop reading the Daily Fail is because it's something they also claimed in their front page headline in todays edition.

    It's all based on a assumption that if the recommendations in the banking commissions interim report are fully implemented that the banks will just pass the cost of the restructure onto the consumers via increased interest rates on mortgage repayments which could be true but that assumption doesn't take into account the increase competition in the banking industry we should aslo see under these reforms. In other words its been assumed by the media that the banking industry would remain static which is a false assumption to make and leads to these highly misleading claims.

    The bottom line is the report out yesterday was just a interim report not the final report which is due in September.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    £1000? either you're trolling or you're a retard?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    What consequences?
    You think a number of very large banks falling would do no damage to the economy?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    Apparently, in order to prevent another banking crisis the people - you - will have to fork out, perhaps, another £1000 to the banks, despite the fact that they have ran-off with big bonuses, as we already know. You may think that this is unfair.

    I think we should pay them. In fact, you have no choice.

    And if this should happen, and I hope it does, you will know just how much you've brought it on yourselves.

    Unfair? No. It is 100% fair.

    You let them walk all over you. Therefore when they take 100% you make it justified, and they feel justified in taking it.

    You think it is immoral. But this is banking. It is not religion.

    There is no immorality or morality in banking. It is do what thou wilt. Ultimately, you have no choice. You let them and you will let them again.

    Each time they take, they take it righfully because you've essentially allowed them to. Only your moral indignation against them gets in the way of what is right.
    This is utter nonsense you have just pulled out of your arse.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Also in what possible sense are increased interest costs a bailout?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    You think a number of very large banks falling would do no damage to the economy?
    You mean damage to the people; economy effects the people, but the banking system is far too big to fail.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    The government failing would be worse than the banking sector collapsing.

    Imagine if the state lost the capacity to maintain law and order, the City would be overrun in a day. The government is too big to fail and so I think in the event of sovereign default the banks should have to foot the bill through a windfall tax.

    But while they are at it can the bankers please STFU about the government "living within its means", governments need less regulation not more, in order to attract the top talents like Ed Balls they should be able to use their judgement, if they want to borrow then let them borrow. Its not as though the banks live within their means LOL. As long as the government has the guarantee of the financial sector bailing it out if it faces sovereign default then there isn't a problem, it can keep on borrowing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    I don't read Newspapers. I got the information from The Wright Stuff this morning......


    The Wright Stuff, the evil child of the Daily Express and the Daily Mail.

    "Oh if only Diana was.......a money grabbing bank."
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.