The way of the world, no country is exempt from it, it's human nature.
Getting wound up over it achieves nothing though.
One law for the rich, anoher law for the poor.
- Thread starter stockhausen
- Start date
The way of the world, no country is exempt from it, it's human nature.
Getting wound up over it achieves nothing though.
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,770
- Location
- Auckland
There's a good reason why these types of threads are not considered SC worthy and instead are relegated to the BUT MY OPINION!!!1 depths of GD.
Lots of butthurt, lots of drama, very little reasoned debate and neither 'side' open at all to amending their position.
Lots of butthurt, lots of drama, very little reasoned debate and neither 'side' open at all to amending their position.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,711
[FnG]magnolia;19856452 said:
My GF always loves amending her position. She loves it.
This made me smile.
If you are attracting an APR it's because you chose to. Nobody is forcing you into a product or service that applies this rate of interest.
If you are forced to pay an APR it is because you lived beyond your means.
If you are living beyond your means because you support children it is because you chose to have children.
If you had unplanned children because you were against abortion it was because you chose not to use contraception.
Exceptions to this are exceptionally rare and I have sympathy for those very very few people. Anyone else can shut-up. Their circumstance is a result of their decisions.
It's a joke imo. You have politicians stealing thousands by fiddling expenses paid for by the taxpayers and they get nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Then you have rioters/looters stealing pairs of jeans/shoes and getting harsh sentences.
They're both wrong but the rioting and looting makes for better TV so it's easier for politicians to justify the harsh sentences...
They're both wrong but the rioting and looting makes for better TV so it's easier for politicians to justify the harsh sentences...
No, some of them were given custodial sentences.
Unfortunately the law has plenty of loop holes to be exploited and the borderline self regulation of the banks allowed them to profit from practices that were very dangerous.
Governments were more than happy for this to happen as the system was too large and decentralised to fail if one part faltered. The reality was very different. Also, the banks profits were profits for the country and over the last 20 or so years we have become somewhat of a city economy that relied too heavily on our banking sector.
Bankers again, didn't break the law in nearly all cases. They merely used the system to generate huge profits that in turn allowed the huge bonuses they were paid. Nothing wrong with that in practice; you earn 100M for the company then a million dollar bonus is fine. The problems arise when that 100M you made was via dangerous methods.
It was a complete meltdown in multiple areas that allowed the global crisis to happen. Bankings lending too much to the wrong people and then generating further profits from selling on that unstable debt. Everyone was benefitting from the system so there is no motivation to look to closely at potential issues.
House prices rose as a result, money was easy to make and considered safe due to what ultimately amounted to lies from the rating agencies who rated the packages of debt being sold at the same level as US government bonds. Pension funds who's investments were restricted to very safe speculation were now opened up to seemingly solid investment opportunities that in reality were never likely to generate funds and almost guaranteed to fail.
How did the ratings agencies get away with this? Because regardless of their trusted industry position, they were simply "giving their opinion on the debt". Ignore the fact that the better the rating they gave, the more money they made, i'm sure that was a sound idea.
There are so many inter-related issues that contributed to the global crisis but to say the bankers bonus' are to blame is to take a very simplistic view of things.
Governments were more than happy for this to happen as the system was too large and decentralised to fail if one part faltered. The reality was very different. Also, the banks profits were profits for the country and over the last 20 or so years we have become somewhat of a city economy that relied too heavily on our banking sector.
Bankers again, didn't break the law in nearly all cases. They merely used the system to generate huge profits that in turn allowed the huge bonuses they were paid. Nothing wrong with that in practice; you earn 100M for the company then a million dollar bonus is fine. The problems arise when that 100M you made was via dangerous methods.
It was a complete meltdown in multiple areas that allowed the global crisis to happen. Bankings lending too much to the wrong people and then generating further profits from selling on that unstable debt. Everyone was benefitting from the system so there is no motivation to look to closely at potential issues.
House prices rose as a result, money was easy to make and considered safe due to what ultimately amounted to lies from the rating agencies who rated the packages of debt being sold at the same level as US government bonds. Pension funds who's investments were restricted to very safe speculation were now opened up to seemingly solid investment opportunities that in reality were never likely to generate funds and almost guaranteed to fail.
How did the ratings agencies get away with this? Because regardless of their trusted industry position, they were simply "giving their opinion on the debt". Ignore the fact that the better the rating they gave, the more money they made, i'm sure that was a sound idea.
There are so many inter-related issues that contributed to the global crisis but to say the bankers bonus' are to blame is to take a very simplistic view of things.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
He sure as hell doesn't write English Jim, not as we know it.
Perhaps he slobbed his way through school
Their sentences were hardly in line with what the recent rioters and looters are receiving now though... Jim Devine who falsely claimed over £8000 was released after 4 months.
That other MP Elliot Morley was jailed for 16 months for stealing over £30,000 and will probably be released early also.
No matter what way you look at it, looting and fiddling expenses are both theft yet the looters/rioters are being given far harsher punishments.
He sure as hell doesn't write English Jim, not as we know it.
Perhaps he slobbed his way through school
You having trouble understanding it? Do those spelling errors make it illegible to you because I can rewrite it if it would help. Either that or you feel that picking at my spelling will cover your lack of anything sensible to say.
Fair enough tbh...
In the same way I'd hope a mugger who steals say £20 to get a harsher sentence than say a pick pocket who nicks a wallet with £200.
The context of the theft is important too.
He sure as hell doesn't write English Jim, not as we know it.
Perhaps he slobbed his way through school
lolpancakehausen
Jim Devine was released with an ankle tag, pretty common for non-violent crime. Who knows how much of their sentences the looters will actually serve?
well it achieves social unrest which as we can see achieves an increase of material wealth for anyone with the balls to brick a window and take what they want.
Put into context the looters did nothing different from what the politicians did with their MP expenses ? It all amounts to ill-gotten gains. So in some respects the citizens are simply doing what they believe is acceptable based on examples given to them by the so called policy makers.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
You are absolutely right. I suspect that many will appeal their convictions and/or sentences and serve less than they were originally sentenced to . . . further discrediting the legal system and allowing the politicians to "reform" it to make it even more biased against the poor. Still, many barristers and solicitors will be happy the Daily Wail will have another chance to express their ill-informed and self-righteous outrage
I seem to remember that not so very long ago, Ken Clarke was suggesting something along the lines that our prisons were overcrowded and not fit for purpose. Still, I'm sure that they will do the trick in this case and we will end up with lots more reformed and quite invaluable members of our non-existent society
The whole thing is another ridiculous and largely pointless populist knee-jerk response by our Tory overlords.