Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
The Eagle

£1.2 Trillion Of Government Cash Has Been Pumped Into The Banking System

Recommended Posts

"Banks heading for another taxpayer bail-out"

High street banks are on the cusp of a second credit crunch that threatens to spark another wave of taxpayer bail outs, a think-tank claimed today.

The New Economics Foundation (NEF) warned that banks will face a £25 billion-a-month funding gap next year and could be forced to seek further State support.

Its report, Where did our money go?, estimated that at least £1.2 trillion of Government cash has been pumped into the banking system.[...]

More tax-payer funded bonuses galore to come?

full article here:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-business/article-23884374-banks-heading-for-another-taxpayer-bail-out.do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Banks heading for another taxpayer bail-out"

More tax-payer funded bonuses galore to come?

full article here:

http://www.thisislon...yer-bail-out.do

I dont want to pay for this toxic mortgage debt.

[in effect I will be paying for other peoples houses.]

Whilst Keeping house prices artificially high, ensuring I can not afford my own small house.

Its a form of Indentured 'debt' Slavery isnt it?

I dont want my money to be stolen from me by the government then given to a bankster as a bonus.

Its not my debt.

Ive already been forced to waste tens of thousands in rent, paying the mortgage of a liar loan landlord.

These [Labour] government policies [blatant theft and cronyism] are designed to keep me in Debt Slavery are'nt they?

Supporting one section of a Society to the extreme detriment of another section of that Society.

Labours 'Economic' Fascism.

What are my options?

Refusing to pay income tax?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont want to pay for this toxic mortgage debt.

[in effect I will be paying for other peoples houses.]

Whilst Keeping house prices artificially high, ensuring I can not afford my own small house.

Its a form of Indentured 'debt' Slavery isnt it?

I dont want my money to be stolen from me by the government then given to a bankster as a bonus.

Its not my debt.

Ive already been forced to waste tens of thousands in rent, paying the mortgage of a liar loan landlord.

These [Labour] government policies [blatant theft and cronyism] are designed to keep me in Debt Slavery are'nt they?

Supporting one section of a Society to the extreme detriment of another section of that Society.

Labours 'Economic' Fascism.

What are my options?

Refusing to pay income tax?

That won't help, there is only one real solution:

Leave the UK and move to a country with healthy finances where tax-money is used for quality public service, not to fill the pockets of banksters and scroungers (yes, such countries do still exist).

The Uk economy is one big piramid scheme, with the banksters at the top, the benefit scroungers in the middle and the honest working tax-payers at the bottom holding up the whole system.

Leave the UK to the indebted, they should figure out by themselves how to get themselves out of the swamp of deep sh1t they created.

I did it and never regretted it.

Edited by wise_eagle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That amount is staggering... :o

And how much more, are we going to carry on giving to these banksters?

Yet no one seems to care much about it.

All we are hearing on the news today, is arguments about the government's plans to save 1 billion in welfare payments. That is but a drop in the ocean, compared to how much they could save, if they stopped throwing tax money to these banks. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the link to the NEF report which is the source for the article:

http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/where-did-our-money-go

And here is the report as freely downloadable PDF:

http://www.neweconomics.org/sites/neweconomics.org/files/Where_did_our_money_go.pdf

Makes interesting reading.

A quote:

Public sector support for the banking sector amounts to at least £1.2 trillion committed, equivalent to 85 per cent of GDP – the highest level of any comparable economy.

Given this enormous sum – in return there is a shocking lack of information in the public domain about where the money has gone, how it has been used, and what has been the ‘quid pro quo’ for the support.

In spite of the scale of support, new lending to households and firms has stagnated.

Edited by wise_eagle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that UK government cash, or the total amount from governments worldwide?

The report is about the UK, so AFAIK it's UK government cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey come on guys, repeat after me, where all in this together, where all in this together, where all in this together. There, that feels better, now go take your prozac, and go back to bed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More quotes from the report, I encourage you to read it, it's written in 'plain english' not 'economist' english:

http://www.neweconomics.org/sites/neweconomics.org/files/Where_did_our_money_go.pdf

Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, unambiguously identified the roots of the UK’s current economic crisis. Yet political action to redress the crisis, and ensure that a similar one does not recur, has been oddly one-sided and imbalanced.

The comedian Ben Elton once joked that nobody really understands economics, it just happens to you, like being mugged.

Today, the general public may justifiably feel like the victims of a mugging, but one in which they are subsequently required to pay for the daily living expenses of the person who attacked them, and who remains free and openly at large.

The previously unimaginable programme of cuts in public spending is the result of the banking crisis and the recession which followed. It is not the fault of the sectors and services now targeted. But, these are now massively out-of-pocket because of someone else’s reckless, antisocial, and self-interested actions. In that sense it is like a mugging.

Yet, the Banks have been left virtually untouched. Little more is required of them in terms of transparency and accountability, and scant new regulation has been implemented to prevent a repeat of the crisis.

The former Chancellor, Alastair Darling, conceded in September this year that the so-called ‘Super Tax’ on bankers’ bonuses had failed to change the behaviour of the industry in giving excessive, unjustified rewards to executives.

[...]

We are left with a banking sector of which it could be said on the flip of a coin, ‘heads they win, tails we lose’. A private sector market which keeps its profits in the good times and makes the rest of us pay in the bad – privatised profits and nationalised costs and risks.

The imbalance in response seems to spread through current government policy.

For example, in seeking to restore public finances, the flea of benefit fraud is given huge political attention and may, extrapolating from Department for Work and Pensions data, lead to a share of savings of around £0.5 billion (which includes administrative error as well as fraud). Yet, at the same time the government has indicated a new ‘soft’ touch policy with regard to chasing taxes, whereby the tax avoidance industry is estimated to cost the public purse £25 billion, and tax evasion as much as £70 billion – around 190 times what might, generously, come from aggressively pursuing benefit fraud. It hardly needs adding that a tighter regime surrounding payment of benefits will disproportionately affect the poor, whilst a looser application of tax rules will disproportionately benefit the rich.

Such an approach is both economically inefficient in a time of recession – the poor are more likely to spend money productively back into circulation, stimulating the economy, than the rich whose additional wealth tends to add to asset price inflation. Also, the Institute for Fiscal Studies recently concluded that the overall impact of the Coalition government’s ‘emergency budget’ was ‘clearly regressive’ and would hit the poorest households in the country worst.2 Their ‘take home cash’ would fall 5 per cent by 2014, compared to just a 2 per cent fall for homes of average income.

[...]

Edited by wise_eagle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the first thing I would say is that it isn't government cash, it is our cash that the government has been 'safeguarding'. £1.2 trillion, that is 12 with eleven noughts on it, so say the working population is 40 million that is £30k per working person, is that right? Incredible figures, hope I'm a zero out somewhere along the line!

Northern Ireland Property

Edited by Chris G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In spite of the scale of support, new lending to households and firms has stagnated.

ARGH!

That's like complaining that even though George Best was given a brand new liver, he stopped boozing. What a waste of a new liver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In spite of the scale of support, new lending to households and firms has stagnated

It would almost be worth giving them some more money if only they would just go away for good and stop lending for good.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the link to the NEF report which is the source for the article:

http://www.neweconom...id-our-money-go

And here is the report as freely downloadable PDF:

http://www.neweconom...ur_money_go.pdf

Makes interesting reading...

W. O. W.

That report should be topic of the day.

If you don't start a dedicated thread, I will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that UK government cash, or the total amount from governments worldwide?

+ 1

There is something very wrong with that number, and wording: "cash".

The total UK Gov. accumulated debt is less than a trillion. It is mathematically impossible to have pumped more than a trillion into the banks.

And most of the support has been under-writings, not cash.

If someone here has time for it, and interest on the topic, it would be better to find the original report from that think tank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the link to the NEF report which is the source for the article:

http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/where-did-our-money-go

And here is the report as freely downloadable PDF:

http://www.neweconomics.org/sites/neweconomics.org/files/Where_did_our_money_go.pdf

Makes interesting reading.

A quote:

"£1.2 trillion committed". Not "cash". Most of these "commitments" are just under-writings, just promises of future support, in case of need. But the banks have been accumulating capital in these past 3 years. They are safer now.

The main cause of this deficit and debt has been gov. expenses, not the bailouts. To exaggerate the cost of the bailouts has been a political strategy by Labour and the left in general, to try to deflect blame for the debt crisis.

206.gif

Thanks to barry for the original post: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=151434&view=findpost&p=2717976

Edited by Tired of Waiting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the first thing I would say is that it isn't government cash, it is our cash that the government has been 'safeguarding'. £1.2 trillion, that is 12 with eleven noughts on it, so say the working population is 40 million that is £30k per working person, is that right? Incredible figures, hope I'm a zero out somewhere along the line!

Northern Ireland Property

I'd be surprised if you are within 10 million.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the link to the NEF report which is the source for the article:

http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/where-did-our-money-go

And here is the report as freely downloadable PDF:

http://www.neweconomics.org/sites/neweconomics.org/files/Where_did_our_money_go.pdf

Makes interesting reading.

A quote:

Thanks.

I've checked this "think tank", and the word "economics" there is very misleading.

It is in fact a social activist, campaigning, left wing - nothing wrong with it, as long as they were clear about it.

http://www.neweconomics.org/about

The NEF director and 1st report author's CV, as given to the Guardian is:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/mar/21/communities.supermarkets

____________________________

Curriculum Vitae

Age 41.

Family Married, young daughter.

Lives Balham, south London.

Education Rainsford Comprehensive; King Edward VI's Grammar, Chelmsford; Polytechnic of Central London, BA film and photographic art; London School of Economics, MSc development.

Career 2002-present: policy director and head of climate change NEF; 1999-2002: head of global economy programme, NEF; 1995-99 campaign communications manager, Christian Aid; 1993-95: researcher, International Institute for Environment and Development, shadow cabinet, World Development Movement; 1992-93: campaign and press officer, Oxfam; 1991: coordinator, The Other Economic Summit; 1988-90: national youth speaker, Green Party; 1987-88: campaigner, British Trust for Conservation Volunteers.

Interests Conversations in cafes; trees; bicycles; writing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.

I've checked this "think tank", and the word "economics" there is very misleading.

It is in fact a social activist, campaigning, left wing - nothing wrong with it, as long as they were clear about it.

http://www.neweconomics.org/about

The NEF director and 1st report author's CV, as given to the Guardian is:

http://www.guardian....es.supermarkets

____________________________

Curriculum Vitae

Age 41.

Family Married, young daughter.

Lives Balham, south London.

Education Rainsford Comprehensive; King Edward VI's Grammar, Chelmsford; Polytechnic of Central London, BA film and photographic art; London School of Economics, MSc development.

Career 2002-present: policy director and head of climate change NEF; 1999-2002: head of global economy programme, NEF; 1995-99 campaign communications manager, Christian Aid; 1993-95: researcher, International Institute for Environment and Development, shadow cabinet, World Development Movement; 1992-93: campaign and press officer, Oxfam; 1991: coordinator, The Other Economic Summit; 1988-90: national youth speaker, Green Party; 1987-88: campaigner, British Trust for Conservation Volunteers.

Interests Conversations in cafes; trees; bicycles; writing.

So what are you saying?

That a Masters in Development from LSE is insufficient to qualify him as a "proper" economist, or that he hasn't worked for a big bank?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what are you saying?

That a Masters in Development from LSE is insufficient to qualify him as a "proper" economist, or that he hasn't worked for a big bank?

Yes,he's trying to say that since the author is not part of the bankster elite, he surely cannot understand the economy.

Lets leave the economy to the banksters, we know we are in good hands with them, I mean just look at their track record... :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes,he's trying to say that since the author is not part of the bankster elite, he surely cannot understand the economy.

Lets leave the economy to the banksters, we know we are in good hands with them, I mean just look at their track record... :blink:

To be fair to ToW, it was my gut reaction as well.

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.

  • 261 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.