Treasury’s £100bn lifeline

MattandJet said:
If everyone in the UK had a million pounds, the total would be 6x10^13.

Using 60m people as a population, IMO tis probably more than that with all the immigrants lol

One billion is 100,000,000,000 which is 1x10^11
Click to expand...

We all use the US billion which is 1000 millions.

A million millions is the old 'UK billion' which no one ever refers to now.
 
kibblerok said:
I really cannot see what we get for the money - when the government could spend say £20bn to start up their own full proper bank through the post office network.
Click to expand...

It means the banks remain solvent. If they go belly up then everyone loses their monies and the government has to bail people out. Then there's no one to lend to each other and a depression occurs. Fun times.

I personally think the media should be controlled. Their over the top reporting of the "credit crunch" isn't helping business confidence.
 
kibblerok said:
I don't understand how the banks need so much.

We (ie the general public) are blamed because we have lived a debt lifestyle - however people have only struggled because the banks have been over zealous, stopped lending and put the pinch on many businesses.... but Its nowehere near the amount they have had for bail outs.

Their losses have come from crap investments - which should have nothing to do with the general public.

I really cannot see what we get for the money - when the government could spend say £20bn to start up their own full proper bank through the post office network.
Click to expand...

Their losses aren't just from crap investments though, their losses are quite largely down to us (ie the general public) borrowing far more than we can afford and defaulting on it, any hint of a recession and the number of people defaulting on loans has gone through the roof.

Yes the banks were stupid, they lent irresponsibly,

But the general public were just as stupic, they borrowed irresponsibly,

And the government just sat on the sidelines whilst this was happening, cheering on their amazing handling of the economy, and destroying the old Boom and Bust ways...


The question has to be whether this country is better with multiple private banks, competing amongst each other to offer the end users a better deal, or whether we want a single, government backed bank with no competition?

I know which i'd rather have.



EDIT: Haha, yes, lets not tell the minions that an institution where they may have their life savings are stored is in trouble, because that would cause them to actually want access to their money, can't be doing with that.

Northern Rock ran a business model where people could borrow more than the value of the item they were buying, in what way is that a viable business model? It was going bankrupt whether the media said anything about it or not.
 
Last edited:
the banks have made massive profits for years, been greedy on bank charges from their customers, had massive bonuses etc and now want bailing out!!!

Banks are a business, if they can't run in a financially viable way then why do we the tax payer suffer!!!

I dont have savings (except a pension if that counts) or a mortgage and 1 cc so my finance is minimal, I spend what I earn and live quietly and comfortably....

why does the public not get any say on government spending etc!!!

next step will be an increase in income tax... its got to happen to recoup some of the massive borrowing the government has :(

times are gonna get worse and I really feel for my kids futures in this 'not so' Great Britain
 
G1BB0 said:
the banks have made massive profits for years, been greedy on bank charges from their customers, had massive bonuses etc and now want bailing out!!!
Click to expand...
Catch 22. If they don't get bailed out, you can kiss goodbye to not only your pension, but your life as you know it.
 
G1BB0 said:
the banks have made massive profits for years, been greedy on bank charges from their customers, had massive bonuses etc and now want bailing out!!!

Banks are a business, if they can't run in a financially viable way then why do we the tax payer suffer!!!

I dont have savings (except a pension if that counts) or a mortgage and 1 cc so my finance is minimal, I spend what I earn and live quietly and comfortably....

why does the public not get any say on government spending etc!!!

next step will be an increase in income tax... its got to happen to recoup some of the massive borrowing the government has :(

times are gonna get worse and I really feel for my kids futures in this 'not so' Great Britain
Click to expand...

You might not have a mortgage but the rest of the country needs one. The banks are the vital backbone to the economy. They may have done wrong in the past but there's not much you can do about it now. They're going to get raped with the return on preference shares and all the other things the Government wants in return for the bailout.
 
I am all for the government taking a more interactive involvement/stance with banks, hopefully when this credit crunch has come out of the other side we may be in a position as a Nation where this kind of thing has a much smaller chance of happening again (or at least in my lifetime)
 
SKILL said:
Their losses aren't just from crap investments though, their losses are quite largely down to us (ie the general public) borrowing far more than we can afford and defaulting on it, any hint of a recession and the number of people defaulting on loans has gone through the roof.

Yes the banks were stupid, they lent irresponsibly,

But the general public were just as stupic, they borrowed irresponsibly,
Click to expand...

But when theres so much of a sneeze, the banks reeled in credit, hiked interest rates and didn't pass on the savings they should have done.

By doing this the caused people who were able to pay - to default and business that needed credit in a position to be unable to play their suppliers, and the suppliers hit by this unable to borrow to overcome cashflow problems.

SKILL said:
The question has to be whether this country is better with multiple private banks, competing amongst each other to offer the end users a better deal, or whether we want a single, government backed bank with no competition?

I know which i'd rather have.
Click to expand...

Or only private banks colluding and continuing to rape the general public? Theres no reason why the weakest cannot go under leaving both private and a Government bank.... which might cause those in the industry to sit up and listen. As it stands at the moment, the people that caused the problem haven't really been hit at all.

Not partial to any figures - securing the savings against their assets and the government filling in the surplus still has to cost less than just handing over the money.
 
kibblerok said:
But when theres so much of a sneeze, the banks reeled in credit, hiked interest rates and didn't pass on the savings they should have done.

By doing this the caused people who were able to pay - to default and business that needed credit in a position to be unable to play their suppliers, and the suppliers hit by this unable to borrow to overcome cashflow problems.



Or only private banks colluding and continuing to rape the general public? Theres no reason why the weakest cannot go under leaving both private and a Government bank.... which might cause those in the industry to sit up and listen. As it stands at the moment, the people that caused the problem haven't really been hit at all.

Not partial to any figures - securing the savings against their assets and the government filling in the surplus still has to cost less than just handing over the money.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of people don't get the fact that retail banking isn't the problem. This was the "fault" of investment bankers. Who are just a bunch of worthless turds in my opinion. In a way this credit crunch might not be the worst thing, it's better that it happened know than 10 years down the line, IB's needed to learn a VERY harsh lesson, managing risk is the NUMBER 1 priority.
 
kibblerok said:
But when theres so much of a sneeze, the banks reeled in credit, hiked interest rates and didn't pass on the savings they should have done.

By doing this the caused people who were able to pay - to default and business that needed credit in a position to be unable to play their suppliers, and the suppliers hit by this unable to borrow to overcome cashflow problems.
Click to expand...

Interest rates haven't gone up afaik, mostly down or the same?

But either way, should people and business run their finances in such a way that the lack of credit is not just an annoyance but that it's enough to bankrupt them? Surely that's just stupid, except of course if you believed that the incredible 16 year long boom wasn't going to be followed by a suitably sized bust, or that the credit would never need to be paid off?

You could say that the banks have finally turned around and said 'You know that free money we've been giving you for years, it's about time you started paying it back' and this has shown up who banked on continuing good times, and who had a bit of money stored away for a rainy day...

kibblerok said:
Or only private banks colluding and continuing to rape the general public? Theres no reason why the weakest cannot go under leaving both private and a Government bank.... which might cause those in the industry to sit up and listen. As it stands at the moment, the people that caused the problem haven't really been hit at all.

Not partial to any figures - securing the savings against their assets and the government filling in the surplus still has to cost less than just handing over the money.
Click to expand...


Some of the weakest banks have gone, or been swallowed up by others, or effectively nationalised. I don't like the bail outs, but I do think that it's a far better plan to bail them out, I mean if Northern Rock, Bradford and Bingley or HBOS were just allowed to fail rather than being bailed out can you imagine the consequences, there would be runs on *every* bank, not just the 'weaker' ones (the general public is incredibly stupid, it'd be like lemmings off a cliff)
 
I hope that this works and opens credit from the banks otherwise this recession will go on for a long time.
 
meghatronic said:
Catch 22. If they don't get bailed out, you can kiss goodbye to not only your pension, but your life as you know it.
Click to expand...
Which begs the question should the banks remain in private hands.

The "too big to go under" argument that's used when people refer to the banks effectively gives them a licence to take unreasonable risks at everyone else's expense.
 
Despite all you read about it, why is there never someone going up to the banks and saying simply what is stopping you lending ? and then dealing with each of the problems, its alright talking about ring fencing "bad debt" like its some finite amount that when we have dealed with we can move on, there is going to be more and more bad debt every day this goes on, its going beyond the american housing market now.
 
Stretch said:
Which begs the question should the banks remain in private hands.

The "too big to go under" argument that's used when people refer to the banks effectively gives them a licence to take unreasonable risks at everyone else's expense.
Click to expand...

Because public ownership is inefficient and won't create a competitive market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom