Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Ologhai Jones

Privatise Gains, Nationalise Losses

Recommended Posts

I've just been skim-reading Martin Lewis's weekly email. One of the items featured is the payment-protection insurance thing; success stories are 'stacking up', with, in one case, a repayment of over £13k.

I imagine that very few would argue that lenders have really been taking the PPI. However, if one were to be harsh (towards the public), this could be seen as another example of where those who rely most on debt and are least careful in their affairs (or who are 'stupid' if you're feeling uncharitable) are being bailed out of their own carelessness.

As seems usual, the assumption is that this money comes from nowhere (just like I always imagine benefits claimants feel about the money they get -- if they think about it at all, it's just 'free' money; they win, nobody loses). But money always comes from somewhere. However hard one has to look, there's always a loser.

So... the lenders have found a naughty way to make profit, and some customers weren't sufficiently careful in managing their money (hence, in some cases one assumes, the need for debt at all) or in checking the small print.

This isn't the best example of nationalising someone's losses (in this case, the borrowers') -- it just happens to be the one that caused me to think the following thought:

The public continue to be outraged that banks have privatised their gains and nationalised their losses, but (to cite a clearer case), seem less concerned when Northern Rock shareholders wanted to do precisely the same thing: If buying NR shares had made them a shed-load of profit, would they have shared it with us? Of course they wouldn't. If their NR shares tank, and they take a big loss, do they expect to be compensated? Of course they do.

Everyone (banks, shareholders, borrowers) wants to keep all their pleasure for themselves, but they're quite happy (or, perhaps worse, oblivious) for their pain to be shared far and wide.

Or, at least, that's the train of thought caused by Martin Lewis's weekly email this fine morning... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just been skim-reading Martin Lewis's weekly email. One of the items featured is the payment-protection insurance thing; success stories are 'stacking up', with, in one case, a repayment of over £13k.

I imagine that very few would argue that lenders have really been taking the PPI. However, if one were to be harsh (towards the public), this could be seen as another example of where those who rely most on debt and are least careful in their affairs (or who are 'stupid' if you're feeling uncharitable) are being bailed out of their own carelessness.

As seems usual, the assumption is that this money comes from nowhere (just like I always imagine benefits claimants feel about the money they get -- if they think about it at all, it's just 'free' money; they win, nobody loses). But money always comes from somewhere. However hard one has to look, there's always a loser.

So... the lenders have found a naughty way to make profit, and some customers weren't sufficiently careful in managing their money (hence, in some cases one assumes, the need for debt at all) or in checking the small print.

This isn't the best example of nationalising someone's losses (in this case, the borrowers') -- it just happens to be the one that caused me to think the following thought:

The public continue to be outraged that banks have privatised their gains and nationalised their losses, but (to cite a clearer case), seem less concerned when Northern Rock shareholders wanted to do precisely the same thing: If buying NR shares had made them a shed-load of profit, would they have shared it with us? Of course they wouldn't. If their NR shares tank, and they take a big loss, do they expect to be compensated? Of course they do.

Everyone (banks, shareholders, borrowers) wants to keep all their pleasure for themselves, but they're quite happy (or, perhaps worse, oblivious) for their pain to be shared far and wide.

Or, at least, that's the train of thought caused by Martin Lewis's weekly email this fine morning... :)

Where possible people should save before they make purchases, but on the odd occasion when a loan is a necessity the small print should always be read in its entirety.

The banks just did what the Labour Party encouraged them to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mis-selling is a fraud.

Again, a crime is settled with cash.

Imagine if a GBH was settled with cash, or burglary, or worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, a crime is settled with cash.

Imagine if a GBH was settled with cash, or burglary, or worse.

In the USA it is! Some idiot broke my arm by tripping me up, I broke his nose in a few places, He complained to the cops first, I get dragged through the courts and hit with a $12,000 bill ($7600 for restitution!, which he used to buy a huge TV), Because I didn't understand the system I got sh4fted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where possible people should save before they make purchases, but on the odd occasion when a loan is a necessity the small print should always be read in its entirety.

The banks just did what the Labour Party encouraged them to do.

The banks did their part and the labour party did their part, in the grand scheme of things they are both tools of the elites that profit from putting and keeping people and whole nations in debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine that very few would argue that lenders have really been taking the PPI. However, if one were to be harsh (towards the public), this could be seen as another example of where those who rely most on debt and are least careful in their affairs (or who are 'stupid' if you're feeling uncharitable) are being bailed out of their own carelessness.

As seems usual, the assumption is that this money comes from nowhere (just like I always imagine benefits claimants feel about the money they get -- if they think about it at all, it's just 'free' money; they win, nobody loses). But money always comes from somewhere. However hard one has to look, there's always a loser.

Isn't the money coming out of future profits? But the other side of the coin is that all this money was booked as profit by the banks in the past inflating their figures, improving their share prices etc.... This free money had to come from somewhere?

Edited by interestrateripoff

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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • 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.