Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Cameron: Let's Not Be Cross With The Bankers


Recommended Posts

0
HOLA441

“It’s about getting the balance right. It’s not going to be easy and it won’t satisfy everybody,” Mr Cameron said.

"But we’ve got to try to work for that balance rather than just think, let’s take revenge on people because they’ve made us mad as hell."

Likely with that lot as well as the last lot it won't satisfy anybody but the bankers.

It's not a matter of revenge, it's a matter of ridding the banking system (and some would also say the political system) of a bunch of out and out crooks and it's not because they've made us mad as hell, that's just a side affect. It's because they've defrauded, impoverished and pauperised many people and devastated the UK's economy.

His appeal is neatly timed to coincide with the widely broadcast appeal by some banker bloke that "the time for remorse is over".

Walking in step.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 238
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1
HOLA442

Agree with all these things. This thread isn't about that though - it's about whether or not we should stop picking on bankers. When cheaters prosper, cheaters dominate. The current state is worse than when the credit bubble was being blown. The economy is reliant on fraud, our PM supports that fraud and we cannot recover until that fraud is rooted out. The idea that we should stop being angry with the perpetrators of that fraud isn't just a repulsive idea - it's economically clueless

If you agree with "all these things", you should put most of your anger against those responsible for blowing the credit bubble - the USA and UK monetary authorities.

Of course we should regulate banks better, and the mortgage market, preventing other bubbles(!), but IIRC you have also agreed that fraud just came at the end of the bubble. In the first years it was just low IRs inflating a Ponzi like property bubble. We have now to deflate this sh!t as carefully as possible, like 10%/year perhaps. If HSBC and Barclays leave Britain now it could be ugly. They do pay a lot of taxes. Remember that more than 60% of all these bonuses go to HMRC. Plus 21% CT. Without this the deficit would be worse, and it would trouble the Gilts market. We could have a sovereign debt crisis then.

Yes these bank directors were short-termist self-serving b@stards, and the banks owners failed to watch over their long-term interest (failure of "corporate governance"), and yes the millions of idiots who borrowed too much to buy properties since 2004 or 05 were ... well, idiots. But the question now is how to land this "sucker" with minimal damage. Pushing HSBC and Barclays out of the country won't help, sadly. I would love to! And we should re-direct our economy, but it will take decades - to invest enough in education for that to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2
HOLA443

Have to agree with Cameron. We should be angry with Gordon for not regulating the bankers properly. Mainly though we should be angry at ourselves for borrowing far to much money for a decade and refusing to take any responsibility for our actions.

Not sure what anyone would expect the Banks to do when there door is being stoved in by the masses wanting mortgages, loans and credit cards. Should they have turned us away? Given the profits to charity?

Was everyone complaining when the tax revenue generated funded a decade of gordonomics.

Interesting how people divorce their own debt and borrowing from the problems the banks suffered.

The general indebted populace are clearly to blame as much as the bankers are. Don't expect any politician to admit it though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3
HOLA444

This is ridiculous. The bankers are the bankers, not shareholders or pension fund directors. Enron shareholders were not guilty of fraud, it was the employees and managers of that company who were crooks

Banks owners are not bankers?! THIS is ridiculous.

The main problem in the failed banks was corporate governance. Bank directors were being incentivised on a short-term basis, annually, with bonuses, at the cost/risk of the long-term. The owners/shareholders failed to protect their own interests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4
HOLA445
5
HOLA446

The question is--who is next as Millipede is, well, Millipede. I have lost confidence in poor old Vincente de Cable but he may be better out from under Dave's control.

Does it really matter who is PM? "That Cameron, why he's as bad as.... as bad as the last one!"

Interesting that even after Tony "things can only get better" Blair and Jesus Hussain "change we can believe in" Christ, that people can still put so much store in someone just because, well, because they're not the current incumbent of either Downing Street or the White House.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6
HOLA447

Have to agree with Cameron. We should be angry with Gordon for not regulating the bankers properly.

And Davlie Cameron has done what about regulating the bankers exactly?

NR popped in 2007. We have a banking commission supposedly providing recommendations in Sept 2011 - which may or may not be subject to delays (like the review into mortgages started by the FSA in 2005). Then if we ever get the banking commission recommendations they will have to be further discussed and laws may or may not be passed depending on what reviews the then government of the day want to request. Davlie Cameron could be long gone by then, swanning off into the sunset earning megabucks like Tony Bliar.

Tony blair will earn around £2 million a year in his part-time role as adviser to the Wall Street bank JP Morgan without ever having to go into the office, The Daily Telegraph has learnt.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/1575247/Tony-Blair-to-earn-2m-as-JP-Morgan-adviser.html

Edited by Redhat Sly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7
HOLA448

And Davlie Cameron has done what about regulating the bankers exactly?

NR popped in 2007. We have a banking commission supposedly providing recommendations in Sept 2011 - which may or may not be subject to delays (like the review into mortgages started by the FSA in 2005). Then if we ever get the banking commission recommendations they will have to be further discussed and laws may or may not be passed depending on what reviews the then government of the day want to request. Davlie Cameron could be long gone by then, swanning off into the sunset earning megabucks like Tony Bliar.

The reason Northern Rock thought it's business model would work was because the management believed completely in Gordonomics . 120% Mortgages, Self certification, endless debt. "The end of boom and bust" perpetual exponential economic growth and house prices that only go up, never down.

As long as house prices were rising NR was a cash machine.

Once exposed as having less clothes than the emperor they were bust, sitting on piles of debt a significant proportion of which would likely default. Funding dried up, who would lend to a likely insolvent bust bank?

Every bank and economist bought in to the Gordonomics miracle economy. The real problem was this culture of debt.

Cameron has done nothing, and there is no need for him to. The change in culture is what is important and it is happening naturally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8
HOLA449
9
HOLA4410

Likely with that lot as well as the last lot it won't satisfy anybody but the bankers.

It's not a matter of revenge, it's a matter of ridding the banking system (and some would also say the political system) of a bunch of out and out crooks and it's not because they've made us mad as hell, that's just a side affect. It's because they've defrauded, impoverished and pauperised many people and devastated the UK's economy.

His appeal is neatly timed to coincide with the widely broadcast appeal by some banker bloke that "the time for remorse is over".

Walking in step.

Actually all this, plus the media threats to "leave London" (if any further attempts/laws are made to stop them abusing their privileged position) have coincided with the banks being forced to recapitalise themselves and pay all/most of debts back instead of tapping the taxpayer.

Edited by erranta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10
HOLA4411

Every bank and economist bought in to the Gordonomics miracle economy. The real problem was this culture of debt.

Cameron has done nothing, and there is no need for him to. The change in culture is what is important and it is happening naturally.

He's trying to set the banks targets to lend incentivised with bonuses! That's actually worse than what Brown did

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11
HOLA4412
12
HOLA4413

Actually all this, plus the media threats to "leave London" (if any further attempts/laws are made to stop them abusing their privileged position) have coincided with the banks being forced to recapitalise themselves and pay all/most of debts back instead of tapping the taxpayer.

Indeed. I'm sure that the talk of banks eventually being forced to recapitalise themselves along with a systemic banking restructure has motivated a lot of the current statements by the government and the banks and widely propagated by the media.

Edited by billybong
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13
HOLA4414

The reason Northern Rock thought it's business model would work was because the management believed completely in Gordonomics . 120% Mortgages, Self certification, endless debt. "The end of boom and bust" perpetual exponential economic growth and house prices that only go up, never down.

As long as house prices were rising NR was a cash machine.

Once exposed as having less clothes than the emperor they were bust, sitting on piles of debt a significant proportion of which would likely default. Funding dried up, who would lend to a likely insolvent bust bank?

Every bank and economist bought in to the Gordonomics miracle economy. The real problem was this culture of debt.

Cameron has done nothing, and there is no need for him to. The change in culture is what is important and it is happening naturally.

Actually it was due to securitisation and global credit markets.

Wouldn't a libertarian argue for less intervention, more deregulation, free capital and credit markets and then the depositors in the failed business (NRK) losing all their money rather than having it 100% protected?

But the argument appears to be for more intervention, greater regulation, local interest rates irrespective of what the FED and the Republicans were doing for 8 years, US banks lending freely into the UK housing markets etc etc. It's almost as if the argument doesn't apply when it comes to any market where the libertarian doesn't hold an asset. Apply the same logic to jobs going to China for instance and they think it's a wonderful idea that capital flows to where the best return is irrespective of social consquences (see Liam Halligan's nonsense on the other thread).

Cameron favours the bankstering sector going on another bender. He's said so. He welcomes it. He loves them more than even Brown did. He'll do whatever they tell him is in their best interests. You watch.

Link to comment
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.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information