Financial sector: "We're not the villains of the financial crises"

Labour are the real villains in it all. As-well as individuals greed and living above their means.


Lloyds are the bank that I feel really sorry for in all this. They hadn't been lendly stupidly. They didn't want to buy HBOS. Heck, they didn't even get to see HBOS' books until after they'd bought the damn thing. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...own-broke-Lloyds-and-it-should-break-him.html puts it pretty well.
 
well I remember both Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock trying to get elected (I was at voting age for the latter). Kinnock is pretty left wing and very nearly got elected. He was not exactly media friendly either. A lot of it will depend on how evil the coalition is perceived to be and how obviously loony left labour become.

Michael Foot's performance was disasterous (it was the only performance worse than Brown's this year), and Kinnock failed to get elected in 1992 when the Tories had been absolutely hammered and were very unpopular...
 
I want to see those 'responsible' for financial crisis severely punished. It has brought misery to general population. I keep hearing everyone blaming financial crisis for lack of jobs etc but nothing gets mentioned about those responsible for it in the first place.:mad:
 
Last edited:
Michael Foot's performance was disasterous (it was the only performance worse than Brown's this year), and Kinnock failed to get elected in 1992 when the Tories had been absolutely hammered and were very unpopular...

well yes, a lot depends on the popularity of the coalition.
 
I want to see those 'responsible' for financial crisis severely punished. It has brought misery to general population. I keep hearing everyone blaming financial crisis for lack of jobs etc but nothing gets mentioned about those responsible for it in the first place.:mad:

I know, but I think Brown is protected by parliamentary privilege...
 
well yes, a lot depends on the popularity of the coalition.

No, it doesn't. It depends on the popularity of the coalition and the position of Labour. Labour expected to win in 1992 because the government was unpopular, while failing to realise they were unelectable...
 
I want to see those 'responsible' for financial crisis severely punished. It has brought misery to general population. I keep hearing everyone blaming financial crisis for lack of jobs etc but nothing gets mentioned about those responsible for it in the first place.:mad:

It's a secret ballot, so we can't really go round punishing all those that voted Labour in.
 
It's a secret ballot, so we can't really go round punishing all those that voted Labour in.

I think the coalition is going to give it a go.

still it's all going so well.

Germany's HRE bank 'pays millions' in bonuses

Saturday 18 September 2010
Germany's troubled Hypo Real Estate (Xetra: 802770 - news) bank, which last year narrowly avoided bankruptcy before being nationalised, has paid 25 million euros (32.6 million dollars) in executive bonuses, Der Spiegel reported.

The property and municipal funding specialist paid out the bonuses for 2009 after executives threatened legal action, the German weekly said in an article to be published Monday.

and you wonder why they are unpopular:cool:
 
I want to see those 'responsible' for financial crisis severely punished. It has brought misery to general population. I keep hearing everyone blaming financial crisis for lack of jobs etc but nothing gets mentioned about those responsible for it in the first place.:mad:

It's very strange how the 'credit crunch' is referred to these days as an almost living entitiy, not the result of grave mismanagement by a government.

And it's always global. Many countries managed their own finances very well and won't find themselves crippled financially for generations.
 
Well that's the main issue. I understand that only about 12% of a typical investment bank's workforce is dedicated towards the credit markets, and therefore (around) 88% of the revenue-generating staff have contributed greatly to reassuring that the bank's survived. As such, I believe it's appropriate to pay these employers in order to keep them around and generating institutional-driven revenue.

Also, the credit markets have bounced back as well, with majority of 2009 income being generated from the credit flow, distressed and high yield markets within FICC- as opposed to the equity markets. Unfortunately these credit flow/cash revenues seem to have dried up recently, and a number of senior industry professionals reckon that a number of the banks with shed staff within these asset classes unless revenue pick up over the next 12 months.

Essentially, most contributors to the market conditions have acted within the loosely set boundaries and pushed as far as possible. Bank's were leveraged, US home owners attempted to secure unstable mortgages and this was mainly due to the regulations being relaxed. Most of the UK banks have done fairly well recently and I imagine that they'll continue to do so over the next 3-5 years, but at more of a gradual rate.
 
I want to see those 'responsible' for financial crisis severely punished. It has brought misery to general population. I keep hearing everyone blaming financial crisis for lack of jobs etc but nothing gets mentioned about those responsible for it in the first place.:mad:

You mean the general public who were too greedy to live within their means? The same general public who were too stupid to refuse credit they were offered? The same general public who when faced with the consequences of their actions felt it was easiest to blame the people that gave them credit in the first place?


What the hell ever happened to personal accountability?
 
Actually the biggest problem is that you misunderstand why people mean want when they refer to poverty.

Here's a hint, society is based on wants, banking is based on wants, jobs are based on wants, the financial sector is based on wants, our entire society is based on wants, the world economy is based on wants, capitalism is based on wants.

Our society completely fails when people start only buying what they need rather than what they want. Basically if everyone today stopped buying everything but food and basic clothing, the whole world economy would grind to a halt and we'd be plunged into a crisis.

Every single job, every, pretty much everything in our lives is based on buying things we want, spending money, and then spending more money our whole lives, without "want" over need, everything would collapse.

Thats why we poverty is defined by the level at which people can operate and get the basics of what people WANT, rather than NEED and why its so crucial we have a society with very few people below that threshold, because we need the vast majority to keep spending money on new tv's, and new cars, and new clothes they don't need, and etc, etc, because if they didn't, we're all completely screwed.


As for who the villians are in the financial crisis, Labour.

I do not misunderstand - I just don't agree with it or your viewpoint. Maybe you shouldn't be giving other people hints if you seriously think that the massive damage caused (to a global non-linear economic system) in this country was by the government to all exclusion of other factors or influences. If you want to blame any politicians then a good start would be Clinton ...
 
No, it doesn't. It depends on the popularity of the coalition and the position of Labour. Labour expected to win in 1992 because the government was unpopular, while failing to realise they were unelectable...

They were unelectable because we would have had a ginger PM. :eek:
 
What would their performance be like without the bonused staff, and did the bonused staff contribute to the losses or act to counter them?

Bonuses are fine if paid in shares. The bonus is annual but a mortgage liability lasts 25 years so theres a massive disparity in risk reward there.
If goodwin had got shares instead of straight cash, his pension would be 25k a year instead of 500k.
Thats a strong incentive to look beyond one years results


It's a secret ballot, so we can't really go round punishing all those that voted Labour in.

Good point :D

Libs acted decisively to support a weak government of a weakened country. I would never have suspected they would act so soundly.
Even if the alliance only lasts for a year their credibility should improve from it. Also Im glad cable is in power as he is one of the few with real world finance experience
Osbourne is the youngest chancellor for a century or so. The situation reminds me of the dragons den when you get two backers instead of one, it adds confidence


I read a similar statement from Lehman Brothers about a year ago - they went as far as saying they were victims.

Lehmans deliberately juggled the accounting. Apparently it was legal but they cant deny blame, they took stupid risks then twisted it so losses did not appear to their creditors and rightfully ended up slaughtered for it.
They could have sold in 2008 (for a dollar maybe but still) but choose to throw themselves on government

The problem is not with business that fails but that people are surprised that businesses fail

The biggest culprit in free markets is government and political intervention. Saving the world is a fallacy perpetuated by Brown and people like him.

Between Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke and Obama they have 1 years employment in the private sector, apart from that they know nothing but politics and propped up government subsidy money


'Governments need to borrow money and spend more' was not the answer 11 years ago either

fnm.jpg


http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html


fnm.gif




http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-winners-and-losers-of-the-financial-crisis-2010-09-18
 
Would it help if the UK had more stringent finance regulations like France whereby it is harder for average joe to get credit?

It would be interesting to know what percentage of people are borrowing in excess of their income.
 
Wow, the Independent website is horrible, is there really a need for 6 flash ads, one of which follows me as I scroll?
 
well I remember both Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock trying to get elected (I was at voting age for the latter). Kinnock is pretty left wing and very nearly got elected. He was not exactly media friendly either. A lot of it will depend on how evil the coalition is perceived to be and how obviously loony left labour become.

Neil Kinnock nearly got elected ?

His party was beaten by 376 seats to 229 in the 1987 election.

In 1992, Labour were beaten by 336 seats to 271.
 
I do not misunderstand - I just don't agree with it or your viewpoint. Maybe you shouldn't be giving other people hints if you seriously think that the massive damage caused (to a global non-linear economic system) in this country was by the government to all exclusion of other factors or influences. If you want to blame any politicians then a good start would be Clinton ...

American Democrat party basically = Labour,

American Republicans basically = Conservatives + a heavy heavy religious following so a HEAVY twist to the right with religious based policy to get their votes(abortion, etc, etc), though its stupid if the republican party give up on going after the massively right wing vote the massively right wing will still at the end of the day vote for them rather than the democrats.

I didn't say it was all them but it was largely them, the problem is with incredibly badly run countrys and decades of large debt increase and over spending was moving a large portion of the workforce from private to public sector, it hurt the governments ability to spend on things it needed, wasted billions upon billions and lost people jobs.

A large part of the problem worldwide was losing jobs in the west, to jobs in the east, and the west as a whole stopped spending as much.

Remember, our entire economy is hurting because USA/UK/richer western nations aren't spending at the same rate they used to on computers/cars/luxury items, or I should say, growth of buying isn't matching growth of production and growth of spending by the governments.

Thats one of the single biggest problems, growth in government spending hasn't matched growth in jobs or spending by the public, hence the large disparity in the past decade in tax income and government spending.


Thats why the simple problem that, cars are lasting too long, and computers don't break often enough or require upgrading often enough has hurt the tech sector and car industry so massively.

Banks were set up to rely on growth in the market, without growth, everything buckles, two of the biggest markets, UK/USA have been happered massively by mismanagement by the government, continual job losses, continual increase in spending led to what, what caused the massive problem this country and america, losing jobs, harming margins, causing companies to go under all to support increase government spending?

Yup, they were losing jobs and rather than try and create new jobs to get more money in and cut spending till the new jobs generated the cash which a competant and responsible government does. They raised taxes, and raised them again, and added new stealth taxes, the massive push on parking tickets and speed camera's, increase in fuel tax, this tax and that tax.

The problem is, you really do have two options, cut spending(which would have been EASY 10 years ago) and then spend time and a little money to encourage job growth in the UK, or raise taxes which led to an increase in the amount of jobs that were lost, an acceleration in the speed at which we lost jobs is more accurate. Which led to an even bigger defecit as the irresponsible government kept spending more and more.

These are by FAR the biggest reasons our economy slowed down, job losses which led to dramatically reduced spending growth, and THATS the problem that caused knock on effects around the world.

If the uk and US spend 50billion less on products because theres less money being generated, then 50billion less gets spent on products in China, for China to maintain their growth to maintain their spending, prices went up on products, which caused another drop in spending as even less people bought even less things.

Our entire economy is ENTIRELY built on buying useless things and our government took every single wrong step to slow down our economic growth rather than grow it.
 
Neil Kinnock nearly got elected ?

His party was beaten by 376 seats to 229 in the 1987 election.

In 1992, Labour were beaten by 336 seats to 271.

I'm not going to research this as quite frankly I don't care.
However there was at least one election when they expected to win,look up Sheffield rally I think that's where it was.

The western economies have evolved by improving your life and getting more things. If people become satisfied with what they have the system grinds to a crawl.
 
Back
Top Bottom