Treasury’s £100bn lifeline

meghatronic said:
"We're all socialists now, comrade" - Telegraph
Click to expand...

This has been Brown's vision all along.

Still, the media will paint it as a bail out and the means to avert a deepening crisis - when in fact they should be reporting on what it's going to mean for us in the years to come.

I think there was a quote kicking around when all this kicked off which has stuck in my mind: "If a government control a man's money, they control the man."
 
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...

The public arnt too blame, banks and the government are, you the sheep have been taken for a ride.
You have bailed out the fat cats, it was always going to happen, and then its going to be pay back like youve never seen before.

Theres a lot of stuff which you the public have no idea about, 2005 when we were heading for a housing crash BOE reduced rates to keep the housing bubble going, they knew what they were doing, 2000 should have had a slowdown, 2001 sep 11th attacks increased spending.

1st they said it will be over in a month, next they said tax payers will not fund the banking bail out, next tax payers are funding the bail out and now the risk of losing the money is high, if fact tax payers are going to lose the funding, YOUR taxes will increase. The public dont seem to care about the massive payouts or bonus recieved by some bankers, yes is your bail out money going to fund them, in any other company wages cuts all round.

You got the government you deserve "Labour" others like myself who never voted labour for various reasons will be paying for it, hence over the years been transfering money away from this country, why should i a person that has no debt pay towards others that have.
 
anticonscience said:
Why has there been no details published that I can see/find to say when these 'loans' must be paid back?
Click to expand...

Most of your loans too banks will not be paid back, dont be fooled into thinking they'll be paid back, its going to be paid back through the loss of memory by the public.
Low interest rates arent there too help you but there to help the banks.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...rices-could-start-to-rise-by-end-of-2009.html


They are already talking about house price recovery, dont be fooled into thinking house price will recover.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure someone must ask these questions in the future? If not, why not?

Why aren't people in the media asking for the specifics of when these 'loans' must be re-paid by and what happens if the bank can not then afford to repay?
 
anticonscience said:
I'm sure someone must ask these questions in the future? If not, why not?

Why aren't people in the media asking for the specifics of when these 'loans' must be re-paid by and what happens if the bank can not then afford to repay?
Click to expand...

because it isnt in their interests and the government knows it isnt going to be paid back.

expect letter from the tax man asking you about your info.
 
anticonscience said:
I'm sure someone must ask these questions in the future? If not, why not?

Why aren't people in the media asking for the specifics of when these 'loans' must be re-paid by and what happens if the bank can not then afford to repay?
Click to expand...
'they' control the media.

They will not be paid back, so it's not an issue of them not being able to afford repayments. At most, the state will own X amount of the banks.
 
Dolph said:
Even if the government encouraged the behaviour? What about the previous (failed and ill thought out) bail outs, should we just write that money off as wasted by Brown and forget about it?

What about the costs of compensating the savers (which the government has already committed to)? What if that is significantly greater than the bailout costs?
Click to expand...

Well I don't see us as having a choice. The money that was thrown at the banking sector in the first place was, is, and will be, a total waste of time anyway. It's done nothing to improve the situation.

As for savers, obviously they shouldn't come out of the situation any worse off. But you also have to look at this from the point of view of the country as a whole. Where is the money coming from to pay the banks? I doubt the treasury has £100bn lying around. So it's effectively a loan.

And all these loans stacking up on one another will one day come back to bite the UK in the backside.

Kemik, I would answer your statement, but you strike me as a standard issue GD poster with an oversized chip on your shoulder, so i'll ignore you. :)
 
Orcish-Horde said:
The economy has already stagnated, it may have done the economy a bit of good it a few of the bank went to the wall and didn't get bailed out. The quicker the bubble bursts the quicker the next one can get going.
Click to expand...
If the banks went bust, the state has to bail people out anyway (savings). So it is in their interest to attempt to recover the banks!
 
meghatronic said:
'they' control the media.

They will not be paid back, so it's not an issue of them not being able to afford repayments. At most, the state will own X amount of the banks.
Click to expand...

They'll try and inflate the housing market again, they know it needs to happen, so you the public will be none the wiser but less wealthy for the rest of your lives if you take part.
 
mattheman said:
It would be a lot cheaper for the gov to bail out savers than banks, 32k rule or 50k rule.
Click to expand...
Not really, as they'd actually have to pay that money out. As (I'm guessing) the treasury doesn't have £1tril lying around, they've loaned it to the banks. It's loans stacked upon loans.

So it wouldn't be cheaper.
 
meghatronic said:
Not really, as they'd actually have to pay that money out. As (I'm guessing) the treasury doesn't have £1tril lying around, they've loaned it to the banks. It's loans stacked upon loans.

So it wouldn't be cheaper.
Click to expand...


They arnt expecting it back from the banks , and paying savers back gov will end up pocketing some of the money via tax so , yes its far cheaper.

"Royal Bank of Scotland lost £2.5billion that had been loaned to Russian oligarch Leonid Blavatnik " walks free.
 
mattheman said:
They arnt expecting it back from the banks , and paying savers back gov will end up pocketing some of the money via tax so , yes its far cheaper.

"Royal Bank of Scotland lost £2.5billion that had been loaned to Russian oligarch Leonid Blavatnik " walks free.
Click to expand...
You're missing my point, the 'loans' given to the banks DON'T EXIST in hard currency. The money given to savers would, very much so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom