Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Methinkshe

From Self-protection To Protection From Oneself

Recommended Posts

As a society, we have moved a long way from the principles of self-protection and personal responsibility that have been foundational to our society for centuries and which have served us well.

These principles of personal responsibility were displaced by growing demands for state protection from the harmful effects on self of other individuals and institutions, which engendered the so-called nanny state.

But I believe we have moved one step further - we now demand protection from ourselves - from the consequences of our own stupidity and/or greed.

We no longer accept responsibility for our own stupidity or cupidity but rather seek compensation from the state; thus, for instance, those who bought property at the top of arguably the biggest speculative bubble in history, now believe that it is the state's job to compensate them, to save them from themselves - from the consequences of their self-inflicted harm.

Those who invested in Icelandic banks demand full-compensation. Yet it was greed that persuaded them to seek an extra percentage point or two in interest, and that blinded them to the need for due diligence. No-one frog-marched them to an Icelandic bank at gun-point and forced them to invest.

Is there any lower we can go as individuals than demanding to be saved from ourselves? This surely is the end of the road for our civilisation as we know it......isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a society, we have moved a long way from the principles of self-protection and personal responsibility that have been foundational to our society for centuries and which have served us well.

These principles of personal responsibility were displaced by growing demands for state protection from the harmful effects on self of other individuals and institutions, which engendered the so-called nanny state.

But I believe we have moved one step further - we now demand protection from ourselves - from the consequences of our own stupidity and/or greed.

We no longer accept responsibility for our own stupidity or cupidity but rather seek compensation from the state; thus, for instance, those who bought property at the top of arguably the biggest speculative bubble in history, now believe that it is the state's job to compensate them, to save them from themselves - from the consequences of their self-inflicted harm.

Those who invested in Icelandic banks demand full-compensation. Yet it was greed that persuaded them to seek an extra percentage point or two in interest, and that blinded them to the need for due diligence. No-one frog-marched them to an Icelandic bank at gun-point and forced them to invest.

Is there any lower we can go as individuals than demanding to be saved from ourselves? This surely is the end of the road for our civilisation as we know it......isn't it?

No, it`s the start of people realising that no one is going to bail them out. If you are in the water with the Madeoff`s, you better bring your own spear gun and make sure it is working yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Here we go)

VIPS use bouncers for protection from others.

What name do you give to someone who protects you from yourself?

Is it a reverse bouncer or something?

A Googly? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest mattsta1964

Wasn't that the whole idea?

The Frankfurt School, Marx, Engels, Gramsci et all knew that to achieve their socialist utopia, they would have to make people helpless and unable to stand on their own two feet

They've done a pretty good job haven't they?

The best thing that ever happened to me was when my dad threw out of the family home and told me to get my act together.

The same analogy can be drawn in today's society.

You have to be cruel to be kind. The welfare socialist state we have lived under in the postwar era has bankrupted the country and saddled future generations with an inconceivable debt burden. Too many people are dependent on the state for its favours

The whole system is crashing

I reckon the entire global financial system will collpase in the next year/ 18 months

If we can get through that without starting WW3, maybe there's some hope of building a better system.

Can't see it at the moment though. We need strong leadership and people need to help eachother through the coming catastrophe. Unlikely seeing as the social fabric has been so undermined

It's all very very bleak isn't it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's all very very bleak isn't it

It is bleak, yes.

The only way an individual can make a valid claim for compensation for self-inflicted harm is if he relinquishes, or is stripped of, all autonomy and self-determination on the grounds of mental incapacity and becomes a ward of court or similar.

Is that we what are witnessing - the birth of a nation of mental incompetents?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(Here we go)

VIPS use bouncers for protection from others.

What name do you give to someone who protects you from yourself?

Is it a reverse bouncer or something?

A Googly? :blink:

Well the reverse of a bouncer is a Yorker! <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is bleak, yes.

The only way an individual can make a valid claim for compensation for self-inflicted harm is if he relinquishes, or is stripped of, all autonomy and self-determination on the grounds of mental incapacity and becomes a ward of court or similar.

Is that we what are witnessing - the birth of a nation of mental incompetents?

Not a nation of incompetents - just a square mile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not a nation of incompetents - just a square mile.

which regard the rest as marks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wasn't that the whole idea?

The best thing that ever happened to me was when my dad threw out of the family home and told me to get my act together.

Did you see that bloke being repossessed on that programme the other week being thrown out of the family home. He was telling the local housing dept they had better get their act together (ie find him a house).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not a nation of incompetents - just a square mile.

A square mile or the square mile?

In any event, the disease seems to be getting quite pervasive from what I have read re demands for compensation for idiotic decisions like the ones I mentioned above. It appears to affect the intelligent and less intelligent alike.

I know there is a fine line between mis-selling/mis-representation and bait-and-hook type selling where too-good-to-be-true outcomes are offered. But we need to make these distinctions and in so doing compensate those who have genuinely been defrauded and refrain from compensating those who are victims only of their own misjudgement, stupidity or greed.

If we do not make these distinctions we will encourage a helpless, hapless, population that will end up as no better than slaves - totally dependent on the will and whim of the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(Here we go)

VIPS use bouncers for protection from others.

What name do you give to someone who protects you from yourself?

Is it a reverse bouncer or something?

A Googly? :blink:

I was trying to find such a description - either for the one who does the protecting from self, or for the person who is protected from himself. The best I could come up with (for the latter) was "mental incompetent!" As for the former - I haven't a clue. Perhaps, as you say, we need a new word. But preferably one that is instantly recognisable in terms of that which it seeks to describe. I think your suggestions are a little too abstruse!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those who invested in Icelandic banks demand full-compensation. Yet it was greed that persuaded them to seek an extra percentage point or two in interest, and that blinded them to the need for due diligence. No-one frog-marched them to an Icelandic bank at gun-point and forced them to invest.

I take great exception to that. The Icelandic banks were authorized by the FSA to operate in this country, backed by Icelandic, and ultimately, FSCS protection.

Are you stupid enough to think that if under the terms of the account it was stated that, "This bank in unregulated in the UK and no protection is offered for depositors" it would have made it into any best-buy tables or newspaper articles?

The interest rate alone is also not the only region for choosing the account. The advantages of Icesave, and also early incarnations of ING Direct were their simplicity. One simple product (no ridiculous rule for withdrawal compared to some of the piss-poor UK banks), good, clean web interfaces (compared to some of the piss-poor efforts put up by major UK banks), and importantly: no ******ing loan salesmen!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those who invested in Icelandic banks demand full-compensation. Yet it was greed that persuaded them to seek an extra percentage point or two in interest, and that blinded them to the need for due diligence.

To be fair on this one, there were guarantees in place that savings (generally not seen as "investments", although I accept the argument that anything not spent on earning is an investment) were protected. Guarantees that failed, true, but putting money in a bank is not on the same scale of self-harm as, say, electing a Labour government and then watching as they spend vast amounts with little improvement to show for it. Compared to the general wastage of the last decade, the Icebank recompense is a pittance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well the reverse of a bouncer is a Yorker! <_<

I think you'll find it's a full toss.

Or a tosser.

So there we have it:

a bouncer protects other people

a tosser insists on protection from self-harm

Edited by Fishman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a society, we have moved a long way from the principles of self-protection and personal responsibility that have been foundational to our society for centuries and which have served us well.

These principles of personal responsibility were displaced by growing demands for state protection from the harmful effects on self of other individuals and institutions, which engendered the so-called nanny state.

But I believe we have moved one step further - we now demand protection from ourselves - from the consequences of our own stupidity and/or greed.

We no longer accept responsibility for our own stupidity or cupidity but rather seek compensation from the state; thus, for instance, those who bought property at the top of arguably the biggest speculative bubble in history, now believe that it is the state's job to compensate them, to save them from themselves - from the consequences of their self-inflicted harm.

Those who invested in Icelandic banks demand full-compensation. Yet it was greed that persuaded them to seek an extra percentage point or two in interest, and that blinded them to the need for due diligence. No-one frog-marched them to an Icelandic bank at gun-point and forced them to invest.

Is there any lower we can go as individuals than demanding to be saved from ourselves? This surely is the end of the road for our civilisation as we know it......isn't it?

I was agreeing with you till the bold bit.

I didn't invest in an Icelandic bank, I deposited cash savings in a UK Company approved by the FSA underwritten by the EU Passport System and FSCS.

Just clearing that bit up. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I take great exception to that. The Icelandic banks were authorized by the FSA to operate in this country, backed by Icelandic, and ultimately, FSCS protection.

Are you stupid enough to think that if under the terms of the account it was stated that, "This bank in unregulated in the UK and no protection is offered for depositors" it would have made it into any best-buy tables or newspaper articles?

The interest rate alone is also not the only region for choosing the account. The advantages of Icesave, and also early incarnations of ING Direct were their simplicity. One simple product (no ridiculous rule for withdrawal compared to some of the piss-poor UK banks), good, clean web interfaces (compared to some of the piss-poor efforts put up by major UK banks), and importantly: no ******ing loan salesmen!

The precarious state of Icelandic banks had been widely reported for at least 6 months before they failed. Even a quick Google would have warned the alert would-be investor. In this instance I believe that caveat emptor was the more reasonable conclusion than across the board compensation.

Also, an authority to operate is quite a different animal from a guarantee against failure. Many companies are authorised to operate in this country - that doesn't guarantee that they will not fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was agreeing with you till the bold bit.

I didn't invest in an Icelandic bank, I deposited cash savings in a UK Company approved by the FSA underwritten by the EU Passport System and FSCS.

Just clearing that bit up. <_<

But if you lend your money to a bank (which is what one does when one makes a cash deposit with a bank) is that not a form of investment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you'll find it's a full toss.

Or a tosser.

So there we have it:

a bouncer protects other people

a tosser insists on protection from self-harm

Well with that logic and seeing how you put it i stand corrected :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But if you lend your money to a bank (which is what one does when one makes a cash deposit with a bank) is that not a form of investment?

That's just playing games with words. The widely accepted word for putting money into a bank account is depositing, and the people who do it are known as depositors, or sometimes savers.

The widely accepted word for buying bank shares is investing in a bank.

Surely you agree that this is a valid distinction and one that should be maintained?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But if you lend your money to a bank (which is what one does when one makes a cash deposit with a bank) is that not a form of investment?

For cash savings outside of the FSCS safety net (on savings > £50k), it could be argued as an investment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's just playing games with words. The widely accepted word for putting money into a bank account is depositing, and the people who do it are known as depositors, or sometimes savers.

The widely accepted word for buying bank shares is investing in a bank.

Surely you agree that this is a valid distinction and one that should be maintained?

I do agree and I think that the terms we use can be very misleading. However, the fact remains that any money deposited with a bank becomes the property of that bank - a loan from the individual to the bank, in other words.

Banks have always been duplicitous in their terminology and in some ways government and economists and financial advisers and many more have been complicit in allowing this indistinction to prevail so that most customers of banks genuinely believe that the money they deposit with a bank remains their personal property. Sadly, it does not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's just playing games with words. The widely accepted word for putting money into a bank account is depositing, and the people who do it are known as depositors, or sometimes savers.

The widely accepted word for buying bank shares is investing in a bank.

Surely you agree that this is a valid distinction and one that should be maintained?

I shall try this theory on Mrs. Fishman tonight as we have a post sex cigarette, after I have left a deposit.

"Dear, just think of it as an investment"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But if you lend your money to a bank (which is what one does when one makes a cash deposit with a bank) is that not a form of investment?

I think in common parlance there is a difference between savings and investment. There are those who save with a bank - they put in cash which the banks hold, but which - unless the bank fails - they are bound to return to the saver in full. Those who invest in a bank, buy shares in that bank, just as they might buy shares in any other commercial enterprise. There are no guarantees that shares will not drop in value, or that you will get any of your money bank.

And, like the previous poster, I put money into a bank with Icelandic connections. I, too, did some checking and put my savings into an institution (Kaupthing Edge) which was fully covered by the FSA guarantee. Those who went into IceSave were using a bank where their savings were covered under a European guarantee. I also saw that the Icelandic banks were further protected by links to banks in other Nordic countries. The extent of the rot was greater than I, or many others, had expected - and we even now finding out just how bad things are elsewhere.

As it happened, I was one of the luckier ones - all the KE accounts were transferred to ING. Of course, ING are backed by the Dutch government, not the UK one - so in a way I am now in the hands of a foreign guarantee system, not the UK one. So, is it less safe now?

Consider, rather more of our savings are in HBOS - and that came within hours of failing, and I'll bet you that the UK guarantee system would have gone belly-up if that had happened.

Given current interest rates, I'm starting to wonder if a safe in the home might be just as sensible a place to put the spare tenners.

db

Edited by deeplyblue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think in common parlance there is a difference between savings and investment. There are those who save with a bank - they put in cash which the banks hold, but which - unless the bank fails - they are bound to return to the saver in full. Those who invest in a bank, buy shares in that bank, just as they might buy shares in any other commercial enterprise. There are no guarantees that shares will not drop in value, or that you will get any of your money bank.

Common parlance is misleading to the extent that depositors are the lowest on the list when a bank goes into administration, and the last to be paid out - actually, they usually never get paid out because any available cash that can be realised will go to preferential shareholders (after tax liabilities have been satisfied...ha-ha!) By comparison, depositors are scum. It is a wrong state of affairs that so few of us who are forced to use banks understand just how low on the list we are.

The only potential salvation for depositors is government guarantee - and that has nothing to do with the order in which investors of a failed bank SHOULD be paid, and everything to do with trying to keep the smoke-and-mirror activity of banks hidden from depositors like you and I. But, believe me, you, as a depositor (apart from government guarantee) are the lowest on the list of creditors when your bank goes bust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 284 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.