Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
sambino

Growing Anger With Banks

Recommended Posts

Is anyone else noticed a large shift change of attitudes towards banks by the sheeple recently?. Ive spoken to several people over recent days who didnt really have an opinion about the bank bailwhen it first happened but are now started to to get angry with them, The people ive spoken to know people or themselves are trying to get, mortgages, bank loans or business loans or they are savers loosing income from falling interest, people are getting more and more annoyed with banks saying that "we have bailed them out so they should lend"

How long before we start seeing branches of banks or staff attacked as the frustration grows ? Anyone else seeing this ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course I'd never condone violence against innocent bank staff, but the couple of occasions in the past where a farmer has parked his tractor outside a bank with the muck spreader switched on have given me plenty of amusement. I really do hope to see that again soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is anyone else noticed a large shift change of attitudes towards banks by the sheeple recently?. Ive spoken to several people over recent days who didnt really have an opinion about the bank bailwhen it first happened but are now started to to get angry with them, The people ive spoken to know people or themselves are trying to get, mortgages, bank loans or business loans or they are savers loosing income from falling interest, people are getting more and more annoyed with banks saying that "we have bailed them out so they should lend"

How long before we start seeing branches of banks or staff attacked as the frustration grows ? Anyone else seeing this ?

Yeah the masses are finally waking up to whats really been going on these last few years , there starting to ask questions like ....'so we give the banks our money so they can lend it back to us at a higher rate' ....or they ask 'how did the country get like this' ....or 'why is there so much reliance on debt' .

Edited by grey shark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah the masses are finally waking up to whats really been going on these last few years , there starting to ask questions like ....'so we give the banks our money so they can lend it back to us at a higher rate' ....or they ask 'how did the country get like this' ....or 'why is there so much reliance on debt' .

Yes but there is still much to do.

I was speaking with group the other day, and the consensus was this has was all been caused by estate agents.

I pointed out they were an effect NOT the cause. The cause being banks being encouraged / allowed to 'print' money.

most of the group did not get it.

I'd say 70% not not get it.

Should the majority be made aware?

If so, how?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone else noticed a large shift change of attitudes towards brewers by the sheeple recently? Ive spoken to several people over recent hours who didn't really have an opinion about the brewers when the hangover started but are now starting to to get angry with them. How long before we start seeing branches of off licenses or staff attacked as the frustration grows ? Anyone else seeing this ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest shift in attitude will come when peeps realise that their own greed overshadowed their common sense and social responsibility. Banks are just serving what masses want. Just like press or culture.

Edited by refusnik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes but there is still much to do.

I was speaking with group the other day, and the consensus was this has was all been caused by estate agents.

I pointed out they were an effect NOT the cause. The cause being banks being encouraged / allowed to 'print' money.

most of the group did not get it.

I'd say 70% not not get it.

Should the majority be made aware?

If so, how?

Governments and the regulators that they have appointed are the ones who are actually to blame. Bankers should have known better and some handled the temptation better than others but the anger is misplaced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My hate is reserved for Gordon Brown.

Yes ........ don't forget the unregulated banking system though.

What the banks did was just a symptom.

of what??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

banks probably have around a 1/3 share of the blame. lending was irresponsible but ultimately the demand for the lending came from the public.

the fact that banks over lent was bad business on their behalf but for people that borrowed too much, they are to blame for their own actions.

now that banks wont lend out easily is their own choice, its their business. the system needs to slow down to reach equilibrium again.

most people that complain that they cant get a mortgage, dont even understand the fact that the restrictive lending of banks is driving down the cost of property.

its actually in their benefit but they dont see/understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Governments and the regulators that they have appointed are the ones who are actually to blame. Bankers should have known better and some handled the temptation better than others but the anger is misplaced.

Yes of course you are right.

Banks only do what they do under the rules set by regulators ??

Trouble is the regulators are paid by the banks.

and banks know politicians are ......... insert own expletive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
now that banks wont lend out easily is their own choice, its their business. the system needs to slow down to reach equilibrium again.

Agree. But why do they get public money? I'd rather see using bailout money used to create a new banking system from scratch than trying to revive filthy and sick existing one.

Edited by refusnik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes of course you are right.

Banks only do what they do under the rules set by regulators ??

Trouble is the regulators are paid by the banks.

and banks know politicians are ......... insert own expletive.

rather than an expletive (I think I've used up today allocation) what about corruptible??

and banks know politicians are ......... corruptible

yes that sounds better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Children always get cross when someone denies them what they want.

Those just getting cross fall into that category.

Ive always been cross with them, ever since I had 6 shillings in the National Westminster Bank, which was a good sum, deposited by an Auntie, on which the value dropped to virtually nothing when i was 18.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The low rate policy was intentional.

The intent of the low rate policy was to encourage borrowing and speculation. The banks took it to the extreme, the government and the Bankrupt of England looked on approvingly as their one-eyed policy took root and grew.

Of course the public got involved, because they had the financial gun held to their head - partticipate and be damned by debt don't participate and be damned by the debt of others. George and King are pathetic, they represent everything that is wrong with central bankers that take no responsibility for their own actions - jokers and con merchants dressed up a free will economiists, which they are not, they have been living a peddling the lie to the public right through their terms.

Edited by OnlyMe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agree. But why they get public money? I'd rather see using bailout money used to create a new banking system from scratch than trying to revive filthy and sick existing one.

You obviously dont have a lot of money in the bank?

This is a bailout for depositors more than it is a bailout for the bank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Individuals who have borrowed more than they can afford are not at fault, they have got themselves in trouble but not the country.

Banks that have lent recklessly, again they are not at fault any more than there are thousands of poorly run business that collapse every year, bad news for their staff and shareholders and those that extended them too much credit.

No, the fault is 100% with the government, (GB and Treasury) and the UK regulators (BOE and FSA).

If they had regulated the banks properly, specifically ensuring that the banks maintained enough capital ratios, then if a bank lent recklessly they might have damaged their balance sheet and share price, might even have collapsed (with the good assets then being bought by a stronger bank) but the country would not need to have been drawn into bailing them out with hundreds of £billions.

And also we would not have seen such an unprecedneted boom in asset prices (i.e. property) and all the resulting economic and social impact, including the lack of investment in real productive businesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You obviously dont have a lot of money in the bank?

This is a bailout for depositors more than it is a bailout for the bank

I have a scary amount of cash in a few banks. But I am getting used to it.

Edited by refusnik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agree. But why they get public money? I'd rather see using bailout money used to create a new banking system from scratch than trying to revive filthy and sick existing one.

if we are bailing out banks to the tune of £50 billions pounds, I would like to think that the first condition of the bailout is that they dont make the same mistakes again and so cut lending and reduce their risk.

the bailout should in fact ensure that banks dont operate in the same way as before and require bigger deposits.

im sure a lot of businesses need funding but ill also bet that a lot of those business are quite risky too. sure they maybe profitable but they may also be a lot of risk for that very little profit.

for example a lot of btl are profitable but the risk involved in them far outweigh the profit, which people are now beginning to find out.

Edited by mfp123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a scary amount of cash in a few banks. But I am getting used to it.

Then if you want to protect your savings - you should be supporting the bailout - atleast until you can move them?

Edited by Hancial

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Individuals who have borrowed more than they can afford are not at fault, they have got themselves in trouble but not the country.

Banks that have lent recklessly, again they are not at fault any more than there are thousands of poorly run business that collapse every year, bad news for their staff and shareholders and those that extended them too much credit.

No, the fault is 100% with the government, (GB and Treasury) and the UK regulators (BOE and FSA).

I have agreed with this for quite a while but changed my opinion to being annoyed at the cynical way the banks got into bed (via the softly softly approach of the fsa and newlab getting elected in 97 as business-friendly) with the govt.

I'd say there was a degree of deliberate engineering by the banks to have the govt let go of the reins for their benefit. Unintended consequences followed, tho. But not unpredictable. At least the tories treat everyone (miners, failed banks, people) with the same cold hard values, unless you went to Eton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Individuals who have borrowed more than they can afford are not at fault, they have got themselves in trouble but not the country.

Banks that have lent recklessly, again they are not at fault any more than there are thousands of poorly run business that collapse every year, bad news for their staff and shareholders and those that extended them too much credit.

No, the fault is 100% with the government, (GB and Treasury) and the UK regulators (BOE and FSA).

If they had regulated the banks properly, specifically ensuring that the banks maintained enough capital ratios, then if a bank lent recklessly they might have damaged their balance sheet and share price, might even have collapsed (with the good assets then being bought by a stronger bank) but the country would not need to have been drawn into bailing them out with hundreds of £billions.

And also we would not have seen such an unprecedneted boom in asset prices (i.e. property) and all the resulting economic and social impact, including the lack of investment in real productive businesses.

they were regulated properly. THEY (Banks) found a devious, difficult to understand method outside of regulation that allowed them to create unlimited credit. This is regulation evasion on a corporate criminal scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not the banks that are taking your money. They have no powers to take your money.

The state is taking your money and giving it to them. If there is any anger then it should be directed towards the state, politicians and public servants who intrude into our lives and take our property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then if you want to protect your savings - you should be supporting the bailout - atleast until you can move them?

I am speaking from a position detached from my personal circumstances. For the latter there is an election day :)

Edited by refusnik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The state is taking your money and giving it to them.

Are they being given the money? I thought the state has become the major shareholders so are the banks?

Edited by Hancial

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.