Dispatches. 8Pm Tonight, Channel 4.

[moonriver]

Incase anyone is interested...

http://www.tvguide.co.uk/detail.asp?id=67438183

Dispatches: How the Banks Won

"As spending cuts and tax rises are anticipated in the emergency Budget to help pay for the bank bail-out, Will Hutton investigates how the financial organisations continue to make investments that risk government-guaranteed funds. He also reveals the continuation of vast salaries and bonuses, and shows why a lack of urgent reform could result in another crash. Featuring contributions from President Obama's banking adviser Paul Volcker and former Chancellor Alistair Darling."

[Executive Sadman]

Oh goody, Blanchflower.

Bet he'll be drilling home the consequence of artificially low interest rates on the unsustainable expansion of credit.

or maybe not.

Bleh.

[Executive Sadman]

FFS. Now theyve got Darling on.

THE MAN WHO STOLE £1TRILLION OFF YOU AND GAVE IT TO THE BANKS. NO STRINGS ATTACHED.

In fact worse than no strings attached, the strings were 'lend like its 2007'

Why not complete the cycle of stupid and bring Bush on to discuss middle East peace as well.

[moonriver]

In fact worse than no strings attached, the strings were 'lend like its 2007'

And feel free to carry on lending it on assets. (property)..

[Tonkers]

Hang on, have they mentioned savers even once I this programme? Only lenders and borrowers?

[Si1]

due to the govt socialising private losses it is impossible for the banks to judge who is worth lending money to or not

therefore business interest rates are very high

but that's the banks' fault after all

[ccc]

That was a brilliant quote a few minutes back. Banks would prefer to lend for bricks and mortar instead of to business. So we now have a country with sky high property prices and businesses on their knees.

[moonriver]

the BTL interests must have been offloaded.

Well I think you could well be right there, now they have actually admitted on tv, that we have nothing more now in this country, than overpriced property.

[XswampyX]

Did I hear lending of 3% to manufacturing, 18 % to 'other' and 75% on real-estate.

Why do we have a lack of jobs, but sky high house prices?

[tomwatkins]

Did I hear lending of 3% to manufacturing, 18 % to 'other' and 75% on real-estate.

Why do we have a lack of jobs, but sky high house prices?

Could a nationalised banking system be any worse, with a mandate to get the country making stuff again? Honestly does anybody think it could. Answers on a postcard plaese.

[moonriver]

Did I hear lending of 3% to manufacturing, 18 % to 'other' and 75% on real-estate.

Why do we have a lack of jobs, but sky high house prices?

I just can't believe how that labour government of ours were allowed to get away with ruining our country, by throwing all those billions of our tax money at the banks, just to enable them to carry on feeding it into overpriced housing, whilst crippling our businesses at the same time, by ignoring their needs. :angry:

[Ride_on]

Did I hear lending of 3% to manufacturing, 18 % to 'other' and 75% on real-estate.

Why do we have a lack of jobs, but sky high house prices?

Think that sums it up! Its hard to lend to manufacturing they actually do their sums and weight up risks mostly, much easier to lend people more money and watch them fight over the properties as the price rises. Banks win....until a large portion are at their new credit limit... solution: ask gov't for more of the peoples money.

Cause - deregulation

[fallingbuzzard]

Savers are lenders! Why long terms savers use banks as intermediaries is a mystery of the modern world. How can so many people be so stupid? And so trusting of banks rather than people.

Hang on, have they mentioned savers even once I this programme? Only lenders and borrowers?

[DTMark]

Missed this - hope it comes on 4oD, not there as yet.

[Cinzano Bianco]

Did I hear lending of 3% to manufacturing, 18 % to 'other' and 75% on real-estate.

Why do we have a lack of jobs, but sky high house prices?

This, and the point that manufacturing provided twice the tax take of the finance sector. Outrageous.

Edited June 15, 2010 by the.ciscokid

[thod]

Did I hear lending of 3% to manufacturing, 18 % to 'other' and 75% on real-estate.

Why do we have a lack of jobs, but sky high house prices?

This is what you would expect though. If a property owner defaults, you get to sell the property. Until recently that meant you got your money back. If a business defaults the chances are there will be nothing to sell and you lose your money. Thus we are comparing low risk lending with high risk lending. Business can expect to pay more for their loans.

The real issue, to me, is what the bank are doing with depositors savings. I can go gamble my savings on the markets myself and get to keep any profits I make. If I don't want that risk, I can put the money in the bank. However all the bank does is take the exact same gambles on the market, keeping the profits themselves. When I put money in the bank, I expect them to very conservative with it. I put it there for safe keeping, not as speculative funds for them to earn a high bonus. We need a separation of retail banking and investment banking. The retail banks will only be able to invest in AAA rated bonds. The investment banks can crash and burn but the high street banks must remain. Of course the banks hate this idea. Retail banking is boring with low margins. Without the retail banks funds, the investment banking arms will not have the billions they want to gamble.

[Reluctant Heretic]

It was a good punchy summary of the problem - but what to do people?

I think I'll visit my local MP, Julia Goldsworthy, and ask her what part she is going to play in saving our country from being ruined by VI gamblers.

On the other hand I might write a children's book about a wicked banker, a deranged king and the children they sold into cruel, back-breaking slavery to fund their pasttimes and pleasure.

[tomandlu]

Did I hear lending of 3% to manufacturing, 18 % to 'other' and 75% on real-estate.

AFAICT lending for property is a win-win right now for banks (although I'd argue a very short-term win).

• If a business goes broke, then the bank can lose the entire value of the loan. If a mortgage defaults, they get the main asset, the house

• Keeping the property market up means that the existing property assets retain there mark-to-market value, ostensibly keeping the bank solvent

• They've just recruited another slave-for-life to toil for the banker's worthless benefit. If house prices drop, they might only get a few years servitude out of each of us...

It also seems to imply that the banks know another sh1t-storm is coming, and that a lot of businesses are going to suffer (so why lend to them?). Still, there comes a point when propping up the secondary market of property and neglecting the primary market of businesses looks sort of stupid. A bit like buying a washing machine, but not leaving enough money to buy any clothes... However, I don't see how the banks are going to make any other choice left to their own devices. It seems worse than Japan - at least their zombie banks didn't bite afaik.

Honestly, if they were dogs (or zombies), you'd have them shot as too dangerous. Instead, we sharpened their teeth...

[R K]

It was a good punchy summary of the problem - but what to do people?

I think I'll visit my local MP, Julia Goldsworthy, and ask her what part she is going to play in saving our country from being ruined by VI gamblers.

On the other hand I might write a children's book about a wicked banker, a deranged king and the children they sold into cruel, back-breaking slavery to fund their pasttimes and pleasure.

Isolate the 'City' from the real UK economy via a 'hard' firebreak.

The global banksters operating out of the flag of convenience that is Canary Wharf should have their BoE lender of last resort status removed, and have all deposit protection removed. The City sees itself as an independent largely autonomous state - I have no problem with that, just stay away from the UK. They cause more harm than good and having sucked the lifeblood out of the rest of us still come running to mummy when they screw up. Clearly that must stop.

It was insane for the UK to have a structure in place which gave state support to RBS (or anyone else) on its global business when it failed.

We need 'national' banks whose remit is to recycle domestic capital, and capital controls preventing the influx of global capital which leaves destruction in its wake when it evaporates, and those domestic banks must be rigorously policed. How did anyone in the UK benefit from people like GMAC being here? They didn't.

Globalism doesn't work to anyone's benefit except the uber rich and bankstering is criminal theft with a government licence.

Global free capital flows and global bankstering must be dismantled. It hasn't worked (unless you're Hank Paulson, Lloyd Blankfein, Bob Diamond etc etc, where it works just fine).

[Danny Deflation]

Hang on, have they mentioned savers even once I this programme? Only lenders and borrowers?

If you are a saver, then you are a lender.

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

I just can't believe how that labour government of ours were allowed to get away with ruining our country, by throwing all those billions of our tax money at the banks, just to enable them to carry on feeding it into overpriced housing, whilst crippling our businesses at the same time, by ignoring their needs. :angry:

This is what happens when the Labour party take on Tory policies and politicians to make themselves more electable.

[_w_]

Did I hear lending of 3% to manufacturing, 18 % to 'other' and 75% on real-estate.

This is what inflation does over time.

It guts the economy of its productive activities and turns the whole nation into a giant gamblers' den. History tells us this is very, very predictable.

It also tells us we haven't begun to feel the pain yet.

[tomandlu]

We need 'national' banks whose remit is to recycle domestic capital, and capital controls preventing the influx of global capital which leaves destruction in its wake when it evaporates, and those domestic banks must be rigorously policed. How did anyone in the UK benefit from people like GMAC being here? They didn't.

What we need is to get rid of any financial product that can't be explained in 5 minutes on the back of a matchbox. Derivatives? Fine if they're for wheat, chuck 'em in the bin if they're for another financial product...

If all financial products had to be directly associated with a physical asset, finance might be less 'interesting' but it would be a damn sight safer...

[Guest sillybear2]

If the City of London see's itself as a special City State above all rules and reasonable behaviour expected by the rest of the country then it should perform its own internal bail outs, if any member comes a cropper then it's incumbent on the rest of them to 'share the pain' and learn from their mistakes. If they can just dip into HM Treasury and the BoE at will then nothing will change.

There has been a bloodless coup in this country over the past two years, and nobody has realised, we've been robbed blind by special interest groups that represent the most wealthiest people in the country.

Edited June 15, 2010 by sillybear2

[babesagainstmachines]

There has been a bloodless coup in this country over the past two years, and nobody has realised, we've been robbed blind by special interest groups that represent the most wealthiest people in the country.

It was Thatcher wot started it, and all the rest since have acquiesced.