One law for the rich, anoher law for the poor.

I think banks need to put money into the public pockets by lowering the rates on mortgages/loans/credit cards et al. This will slowly increase public spending, which will give us some time to think about things.

There also needs to be an increase in exported goods and a decrease in people coming into the country for a few years until the world stabilisers.

We also have to restore trust because as it stands a lot of people distrust the government, media and banks otherwise the whole situation will just get worse & worse & worse.

The media needs to stop telling crap fake stories, adverts need to be less frequent and more schemes to help younger generations need to come about more.

The sale of Alcohol needs to slow down, alcohol should not allowed to be promoted on TV/Shops e.t.c and alcohol should only be allowed to be sold in pubs / high markets not corner shops. They also need to shut all pubs at a certain time not have them open all hours as alcohol in my opinion has a lot to do with Fri/Sat night problems for the police / NHS.
 
Last edited:
iDroid84 said:
I think banks need to put money into the public pockets by lowering the rates on mortgages/loans/credit cards et al. This will slowly increase public spending, which will give us some time to think about things.
Click to expand...
There are low mortgage rates out there, ING were offering a fixed 2% rate only last month.
 
Surely rich people should have different laws?

I mean, they're obviously better human beings yeah? Seeing as they are successful, unlike a lot of poor people who for generations have failed at life and must really have something wrong with them?
 
iDroid84 said:
There might be but there will be some catch to get on these types of schemes. People between 20-30 can hardly get mortgages because the value of houses are just too high for what they are worth.
Click to expand...
What catches are these then?

iDroid84 said:
That's the problem, everyone who works is forced to have a bank account. Theres no other option for most people.
Click to expand...
What alternative do you suggest?
 
sigma said:
Let the banks fail?

Do you know how stupid that statement is?

Whose money do you think those banks hold?
Click to expand...

Unsuccessful banks should have gone down, governments should have just covered savings per private accounts up to £80k, and £1M for company accounts (figures are just examples). This would have flushed all the culture of waste and risk on those companies.

I don't see why banks should not be treated like any other private company, rewarding failure is the wrong policy and against the spirit of capitalism.
 
OldCoals said:
What catches are these then?

What alternative do you suggest?
Click to expand...

Will need to do some research for the 2% mortgages but that was just an example that I give.

Alternatives, well there isn't any is there (not like it could be cash in hand, as it's all digital now) this is why it's important that the banks are there and I don't have any other suggestions right this moment but everyones basically been forced to do it as there is no other way to keep money.
 
hola_adios said:
Unsuccessful banks should have gone down, governments should have just covered savings per private accounts up to £80k, and £1M for company accounts (figures are just examples). This would have flushed all the culture of waste and risk on those companies.

I don't see why banks should not be treated like any other private company, rewarding failure is the wrong policy and against the spirit of capitalism.
Click to expand...



I would suggest that if all the savings that companies had in the banks were cut down to £1m then there would be some fairly major problems.

edit - oh, figures are just examples. Was that a ninja edit or did I just miss that?
 
hola_adios said:
Unsuccessful banks should have gone down, governments should have just covered savings per private accounts up to £80k, and £1M for company accounts (figures are just examples). This would have flushed all the culture of waste and risk on those companies.

I don't see why banks should not be treated like any other private company, rewarding failure is the wrong policy and against the spirit of capitalism.
Click to expand...

The biggest problem is that banks hold everyones money who work so it would be a nightmare to get accounts / money transferred to different areas. Could you imaging if Barclays failed n was knocked offline? Some angry customers there mind n there would be hell on!
 
hola_adios said:
Unsuccessful banks should have gone down, governments should have just covered savings per private accounts up to £80k, and £1M for company accounts (figures are just examples). This would have flushed all the culture of waste and risk on those companies.

I don't see why banks should not be treated like any other private company, rewarding failure is the wrong policy and against the spirit of capitalism.
Click to expand...

Personal savings isn't just what banks 'do'.

Slam62 said:
no, just no, absolutely no

the banks hold debt not money
Click to expand...

Ok 'trade', not hold.

Do you guys think we'd be in a much better place if we let the banks fail?
 
sigma said:
Let the banks fail?

Do you know how stupid that statement is?

Whose money do you think those banks hold?
Click to expand...

I'm not advocating banks should fail, I was just trying to point out the fallacy in the logic of your statement.

"banks are a business they cam do what they want"

However

"banks cant fail"

These statements should not (despite the fact that they currently do) be allowed to exist together.

Your banking sector should either be a non profit organisation holding our money and thus be protected from all risk, or, fully independent and thus applicable to all the risks and benefits that come with operating said business.

Note as well that a lot of the criticism directed against the rioters (sonething I detest for happening) was that they are protected from all risk and have no self responsibility or community spirit because regardless of twit actions they are protected from risk.... Hmm.... Does that sound familiar??

Their criminality while completely unrelated is equally as detestable and disgusting as the rioters, more so infect that operated from a position of trust. The parallels are obvious if you look.

My personal solution would be fully independent and unregulated banking as in the past. With the addendum that ALL private savings deposits from individuals are ring fenced and that enough capital is put aside to match these debts. The bank can then do as they please, make their Monet as is their won't, but when it goes wring they suffer the consequences and go to he'll in their homemade handcart. People are given their savings back and the Iredell sable bank is gone.

Action = Consequence. Something missing from all levels of society these days.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom