Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
DTMark

The Banks Have Won

Recommended Posts

Discuss please :)

There was a moment in last night's Question Time which made me think about this.

A woman in the audience, on the topic of Greece and whether we should contribute to a bailout, spoke the immortal words "it's going to affect us".

To give the thread title context: "us" is significant.

Strictly speaking, it isn't going to affect "us". It will affect our private banks who have exposure to Greek debt.

Now of course a fair number of those banks should have gone to the wall. However the then New Labour government propped them up (whilst at the same time failing to secure anything of any substance in return, since they were so terrified that the golden goose might stop laying and ultimately were far less clever than the bankers).

To be fair it was a recapitalisation rather than a hand out; QE is the more blatant hand out. On top of that Mervyn King got his way to ensure that we wouldn't have another Northern Rock not by tightening some rules, changing capital adequacy requirements or anything positive like that, but simply that banks could be propped up in secret where necessary.

Clearly, in an economy based on all the eggs in one basket - financial services and banking - and the blame for that goes to New Labour - anything that affects the banks has an effect on us. Of course it does. If Tesco went to the wall that would also have an effect on "us". Whilst this might sound like a point of pedantry however, the phrase "knock on effect" - that the damage is indirect - doesn't seem to register or even apply now.

Banks are private institutions in a position so privileged that as I've always maintained, they effectively run the country. The Government just shuffles pieces of paper around from one department to another. They're in charge, but they don't hold power.

It's the "us" that's significant and something of a psychological shift seems to have occured. Even the "man in the street" thinks that the Greek crisis will affect "us" as if the marriage between banking and the state is complete now, inference - they are one and the same. "We" (as in "us", as in the man in the street) lent Greece the money and they're not going to pay "us" back.

The conversion is now complete; the pup has been successfully sold. Banks 1, everyone else nil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had a chance to re-structure 'the system' and didn't take it. The banks are effectively being rewarded for their irresponsible behaviour by cleaning up on lending at 3-4% above base., whilst offering savers feck all.

And we (Jo Public) have accepted it with barely a whimper.

It'll be interesting to see what happens when rates eventually rise, whether or not the banks can still get away with their current margins...

"The average SVR is now 3.48% above the base rate, compared with 1.95% in September 2008."

http://www.propertycommunity.com/property-in-the-uk/uk-lenders-continue-to-let-down-property-buyers.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'll be interesting to see what happens when rates eventually rise, whether or not the banks can still get away with their current margins...

I don't doubt it. As the base rate fell, mortgage rates did not fall in line. The Government squealed publicly, some backhanders were exchanged (just a guess, that one), and rates did then fall a bit.

As the base rate rises, mortgage rates will indeed rise in line.

What we appear to have created is an impossibility; a contradiction in terms - a near symbiotic relationship between parasite and host.

I say "near", since banks do pay taxes.

It's the psychology of "us" that I think important. The "we" in "We're all in this together" - including the banks - places both the parasite and the host on the same side.

Originally I think people thought that phrase meant "all of the people and the government" and the psychological shift I think has occured is to include the banks in that list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had a chance to re-structure 'the system' and didn't take it. The banks are effectively being rewarded for their irresponsible behaviour by cleaning up on lending at 3-4% above base., whilst offering savers feck all.

And we (Jo Public) have accepted it with barely a whimper.

It'll be interesting to see what happens when rates eventually rise, whether or not the banks can still get away with their current margins...

"The average SVR is now 3.48% above the base rate, compared with 1.95% in September 2008."

http://www.propertycommunity.com/property-in-the-uk/uk-lenders-continue-to-let-down-property-buyers.html

I would be interested to see what they were in the late 90s, before it all went completely mad.

I suspect that the irresponsible behaviour including feckless lending at unprofitable margins (at least unprofitable once the MBS model broke). The return to responsible lending should include not just sensible Salary multiples, sensible LTVs but also margins that more closely reflect the true risks involved in lending on a property in a stable or falling market.

Edited by bobthe~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'll be interesting to see what happens when rates eventually rise, whether or not the banks can still get away with their current margins...

Who do you think sets rates? The banks do. Do you think they will set them to anything other than what is to their best advantage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, it will affect us.

Some people think of banks like they do people. That the banks really hold stuff like Greek bonds on which they have lost money. Well nope, the banks are in turn owned by others, and are employed by stakeholders too, and are owed money by those banks. So if our banks lose money, real people, who are shareholders, workers and bondholders, all lose that money.

And a lot of the risk is held by proxy, you may hold shares in a German bank that goes under due to the Greek debt defaulting.

And Bankers pretty much only take a commission for the work they do. The top ones defraud or whatever is necessary to make that slice of pie as large as possible, but someone else is normally holding the risk.

And the risk will be held by ordinary UK citizens, either directly or through their pension funds.

Also to consider is what happens to asset values of companies if demand in Europe falls due to a banking crisis. A factory is only worth something, if people are buying enough stuff from it. If we get a big credit crisis, almost all asset values could plunge.

No hiding place in gold either. Perhaps pot noodle and a means of starting a fire are a good investment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the psychology of "us" that I think important. The "we" in "We're all in this together" - including the banks - places both the parasite and the host on the same side.

Only because the banks know that they can't completely kill the host. And everyone else is individually powerless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be interested to see what they were in the late 90s, before it all went completely mad.

...

I think this is what you are looking for:

It's a bit of an old post http://retirementinvestingtoday.blogspot.com/2010/07/uk-mortgage-rates-and-mortgage.html

100710-1.jpg

I've then taken this dataset (Average Variable Rate Mortgages to Households) and subtracted the Official Bank Rate to get a delta comparison for Jan of each year since the mid 90's.

Result is:

Jan 1995 2.09%

Jan 1996 1.60%

Jan 1997 1.24%

Jan 1998 1.31%

Jan 1999 1.60%

Jan 2000 1.38%

Jan 2001 1.56%

Jan 2002 1.67%

Jan 2003 1.64%

Jan 2004 1.84%

Jan 2005 1.86%

Jan 2006 1.86%

Jan 2007 1.76%

Jan 2008 2.01%

Jan 2009 3.23%

Jan 2010 3.58%

Jan 2011 3.52%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Banks are private institutions in a position so privileged that as I've always maintained, they effectively run the country. The Government just shuffles pieces of paper around from one department to another. They're in charge, but they don't hold power.

It's the "us" that's significant and something of a psychological shift seems to have occured. Even the "man in the street" thinks that the Greek crisis will affect "us" as if the marriage between banking and the state is complete now, inference - they are one and the same. "We" (as in "us", as in the man in the street) lent Greece the money and they're not going to pay "us" back.

The conversion is now complete; the pup has been successfully sold. Banks 1, everyone else nil.

It's the psychology of "us" that I think important. The "we" in "We're all in this together" - including the banks - places both the parasite and the host on the same side.

Originally I think people thought that phrase meant "all of the people and the government" and the psychological shift I think has occured is to include the banks in that list.

I disagree with the idea that the concept of the financial powers, the government, and the good of the people has been successfully welded together to form an Orwellian newspeak collective 'us'. If anything, the spirit of the times is taking the perception of Joe Public in a different direction where people who ten years ago would have quite happily swallowed the malconception of 'us', binding the interests of the ultra wealthy and the state with those of the populace at large, are now beginning to distinguish phenomena such as parasitic financial power, mainstream media, and the puppet governments they manipulate and seperate it out from the concept of 'us' and the greater good.

This change in social attitude has not yet peaked and therefore there are still many minds (especially older generation) who subscribe to this outdated perception of state and economic establishment as representing some kind of all binding harsh but ultimately good patriachal force, a malperception which is all too gladly spun by the status quo maintaining main stream media, especially on ******** shows like QT. But the change is definitely occurring. For example, I think most would agree that if Britain was faced with a large scale war in the late 80's, early 90's, then a national conscription could be easily acheived with the odd voice of dissent being drowned and sheperded into place by the collective dogma. If Britain was today faced with a large scale war requiring mass conscription, I think the voices of dissent would either equal or actually outweigh any attempted pro war dogmatisation of opinion. Increasingly people are developing a mindset where the only battles worth fighting are for themselves, as oppossed to sacrificing oneself for some false master as has been the unquestioned tradition for a very long time.

The up and coming 'organic' sociological force over the coming years will be mans desire to unleash and 'worship' his own individuality. This of course greatly contradicts the increasingly centralisation of economic power and the course of governments the world over who are continually taking away individual freedoms and pushing towards ever-increasing police state structures of governance. In the UK, this change is still quite hard to see cos we all still have it far too cushy to really be bothered taking a proactive approach to our personal convictions........that and a populace trashed by trash junk culture, with a large 'underclass' strata of the populace addicted to lifestyles and a culture of dependency. The fact that there is a program of 'reverse eugenics' occurring in this country where the most chaotic, destructive, uneducated, and ultimately the most helpless members of the population are breeding like f-ing rabbits from thier mid teens onwards whilst the rest of us have maybe 1-2 kids in our thirties; is another area of concern.

Edited by BobBobson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now of course a fair number of those banks should have gone to the wall. However the then New Labour government propped them up (whilst at the same time failing to secure anything of any substance in return, since they were so terrified that the golden goose might stop laying and ultimately were far less clever than the bankers).

To be fair it was a recapitalisation rather than a hand out; QE is the more blatant hand out. On top of that Mervyn King got his way to ensure that we wouldn't have another Northern Rock not by tightening some rules, changing capital adequacy requirements or anything positive like that, but simply that banks could be propped up in secret where necessary.

Clearly, in an economy based on all the eggs in one basket - financial services and banking - and the blame for that goes to New Labour - anything that affects the banks has an effect on us. Of course it does. If Tesco went to the wall that would also have an effect on "us". Whilst this might sound like a point of pedantry however, the phrase "knock on effect" - that the damage is indirect - doesn't seem to register or even apply now.

Banks are private institutions in a position so privileged that as I've always maintained, they effectively run the country. The Government just shuffles pieces of paper around from one department to another. They're in charge, but they don't hold power.

They call them Government Sachs in the US and now they "own" Europe as well.

Jun 24, 2011 2:35 PM GMT+0100 .

Italy’s Mario Draghi dodged last- minute French objections to win the European Central Bank presidency in a dispute that threatened to overshadow efforts to prevent a Greek default.

Draghi’s appointment today at the end of a two-day European Union summit followed a pledge by euro leaders yesterday to do whatever it takes to support Greece as long as Prime Minister George Papandreou pushes through a package of deficit cuts.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-24/eu-leaders-to-endorse-draghi-as-next-ecb-president.html

He knows a lot about Greece:

March 17, 2010

The latest revelations regarding the Goldman-Greece relationship (on the Senate floor, no less) clearly indicate that Goldman was a lead manager of Greek debt issues in spring 2002, i.e., when Mr. Draghi was on board.

This raises three entirely reasonable and straightforward questions.

1.Was Mr. Draghi involved in the Goldman-Greece relationship? Sources indicate that this was very much part of his set of responsibilities, but this may be disputed.

2.If Mr. Draghi was involved in marketing Greek debt, did he at that time know the true Greek debt numbers - i.e., was he aware of the "debt swap" arrangement? Perhaps his Goldman colleagues concealed that information from him.

3.And when/if Mr. Draghi became aware of the inherent misrepresentation involved this transaction, did he take steps to fully informed investors (and any relevant regulatory bodies)? Again, it is entirely possible he learned of this matter only recently and from the newspapers.

Keep in mind that Mr. Draghi is still regarded as a leading contender to become president of the European Central Bank - the most important policymaking institution in the eurozone. It will be hard for anyone to advance his candidacy without clear and public answers to these questions.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simon-johnson/mario-draghi-and-goldman_b_502248.html

Goldman Sachs economist Ben Broadbent has been named as the new member of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee (MPC), replacing Andrew Sentance.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8367092/MPCs-Ben-Broadbent-profile.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excepting the relatively tiny amount of physical cash in circulation, our means of exchange is lent at (net) interest to us by the commercial banks. They control its initial allocation by their lending decisions. Because of tax and legal tender legislation, we can have no practical alternative to their expensive and unstable rent-a-currency system. Without the banks’ complicity, no significant economic activity takes place. They have far too much power.

The banks have not simply won, at present they control the whole game.

It doesn’t have to be this way:

http://www.positivemoney.org.uk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excepting the relatively tiny amount of physical cash in circulation, our means of exchange is lent at (net) interest to us by the commercial banks. They control its initial allocation by their lending decisions. Because of tax and legal tender legislation, we can have no practical alternative to their expensive and unstable rent-a-currency system. Without the banks’ complicity, no significant economic activity takes place. They have far too much power.

The banks have not simply won, at present they control the whole game.

It doesn’t have to be this way:

http://www.positivemoney.org.uk

Thing is you can already tell them to sod off, because what they are doing is fraud.

It's just that very few people actually do so.

(And ofc, asking the state to run the system is like running to Freddy Kruger for because you are afraid of getting a paper cut.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with the idea that the concept of the financial powers, the government, and the good of the people has been successfully welded together to form an Orwellian newspeak collective 'us'. If anything, the spirit of the times is taking the perception of Joe Public in a different direction where people who ten years ago would have quite happily swallowed the malconception of 'us', binding the interests of the ultra wealthy and the state with those of the populace at large, are now beginning to distinguish phenomena such as parasitic financial power, mainstream media, and the puppet governments they manipulate and seperate it out from the concept of 'us' and the greater good.

This change in social attitude has not yet peaked and therefore there are still many minds (especially older generation) who subscribe to this outdated perception of state and economic establishment as representing some kind of all binding harsh but ultimately good patriachal force, a malperception which is all too gladly spun by the status quo maintaining main stream media, especially on ******** shows like QT. But the change is definitely occurring. For example, I think most would agree that if Britain was faced with a large scale war in the late 80's, early 90's, then a national conscription could be easily acheived with the odd voice of dissent being drowned and sheperded into place by the collective dogma. If Britain was today faced with a large scale war requiring mass conscription, I think the voices of dissent would either equal or actually outweigh any attempted pro war dogmatisation of opinion. Increasingly people are developing a mindset where the only battles worth fighting are for themselves, as oppossed to sacrificing oneself for some false master as has been the unquestioned tradition for a very long time.

The up and coming 'organic' sociological force over the coming years will be mans desire to unleash and 'worship' his own individuality. This of course greatly contradicts the increasingly centralisation of economic power and the course of governments the world over who are continually taking away individual freedoms and pushing towards ever-increasing police state structures of governance. In the UK, this change is still quite hard to see cos we all still have it far too cushy to really be bothered taking a proactive approach to our personal convictions........that and a populace trashed by trash junk culture, with a large 'underclass' strata of the populace addicted to lifestyles and a culture of dependency. The fact that there is a program of 'reverse eugenics' occurring in this country where the most chaotic, destructive, uneducated, and ultimately the most helpless members of the population are breeding like f-ing rabbits from thier mid teens onwards whilst the rest of us have maybe 1-2 kids in our thirties; is another area of concern.

That's the bit I was getting at :)

I'm certainly not saying that individuals in this country aren't going to feel the effects of a Greek default. Indeed, anyone invested in those banks with exposure will take a hit (leicestersq) and it's ignorant to imagine that there's some great thick dividing line between how our individuals fare and how our companies fare. After all our companies (generally) are "us". Though I think the banks are in a slightly separate category because, uniquely, they can exploit the money supply "at source" (e.g. QE)

It's the psychology of this which interested me reference that point on QT last night.

With regard to the word "parasite" - I had to look this up. Generally parasites don't kill hosts, since the parasite depends on the host for its survival (though the same is not true in reverse); specific types of parasite do kill the host (typically parasitoids), that said this isn't a biology lesson and even if it were I'm not the one to be giving it since it's a subject I know little about. But it's important in context:

The parasite typically gives nothing back to the host (and there's the difference between that and a symbiotic relationship where both creatures benefit)

Now you could say that the banks aren't parasites, since they pay taxes. Though I have yet to see any data published which looks back over the last decade and projects the next one (as if that were possible with any degree of precision given where we are) which tells us whether it's zero sum, if the banks benefit us, or actually if overall we benefit them. That's a somewhat separate debate but it does link in here. "They" couldn't exist without "our" money. Socialism pervades at the upper echelons of society with capitalism for everyone in the middle and socialism for those at the bottom. That's my take anyway after 14 years of New Labour.

All that preamble said: agree with your incisively made points. And I do forsee riots which will make the poll tax riot look like an agreeable tea party, with banks being smashed up and people afraid to go to work in them (and I mean retail banks nationwide not just the HQs in London); vigilante groups acting "for the people against the banks" and so on. That's where I think we're headed and to bastardise an expression without losing the context completely, the "mouse will roar again".

It simply concerned and does concern me about the "us" bit. It's as if psychologically weary and less informed people (not everyone is into economics, I certainly wasn't before I posted here) have bought the line and I wonder how far the Government will need to go in order to persuade the public that the banks are their friends to prevent said riots. And whether they will succeed. My fear was and is that they have already succeeded as far as the "general populous" is concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

And the risk will be held by ordinary UK citizens, either directly or through their pension funds.

Not me, I've never been able to afford a pension fund.

Probably paying into a few other people's though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is what you are looking for:

It's a bit of an old post http://retirementinvestingtoday.blogspot.com/2010/07/uk-mortgage-rates-and-mortgage.html

100710-1.jpg

I've then taken this dataset (Average Variable Rate Mortgages to Households) and subtracted the Official Bank Rate to get a delta comparison for Jan of each year since the mid 90's.

Result is:

Jan 1995 2.09%

Jan 1996 1.60%

Jan 1997 1.24%

Jan 1998 1.31%

Jan 1999 1.60%

Jan 2000 1.38%

Jan 2001 1.56%

Jan 2002 1.67%

Jan 2003 1.64%

Jan 2004 1.84%

Jan 2005 1.86%

Jan 2006 1.86%

Jan 2007 1.76%

Jan 2008 2.01%

Jan 2009 3.23%

Jan 2010 3.58%

Jan 2011 3.52%

Nice bit of work, thanks.

Not what I would have expected at all, although that starting point of around 2% could suggest that banks were still rebuilding balance sheets back at the tail end of the last recession.

This doesn't look at the narrowing margins on lifetime trackers, at BoE + x, which from personal experience went down from around x = 0.85% to 0.25% between 2002 and 2007, with some of course being under Base Rate.

Edit to add:

On further reflection, with SVRs at 8%, there is plenty of scope to make money on Boe rate + 1.6%.

But I don't want to divert an interesting thread...

Edited by bobthe~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is you can already tell them to sod off, because what they are doing is fraud.

It's just that very few people actually do so.

(And ofc, asking the state to run the system is like running to Freddy Kruger for because you are afraid of getting a paper cut.)

Individuals can take their money out of bank accounts and to some degree refuse to participate in the game. However things like direct debit make that more difficult, and deliberately so. It's all intentional - that would be why payees will happily change the date of your direct debit to the day after your pay day - so they're first in the pecking order when you get paid in case you don't have enough to pay everyone. And people think that's doing them a great service.

(I don't have any direct debits, I refuse to use them)

But: what would it take to get the necessary revolution? This whole so called "credit crunch" was entirely predictable (this board got it right) yet here we are. It is the closest that the general populous has ever got to discovering the fraud being perpetrated. And yet, "we're all in it together".

Do you think we're near a tipping point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But we (including the banks) are all in this together.

We borrowed all that money, we lived are champagne lifestyles on MEWing and an endless stram of fraction-reserve based credit.

We all knew it was going on. The government knew it when they relaxed the laws, the banks knew it because they designed the system, and we knew it insofar that we didn't care as long as we could have our 4x4's and 3 holidays a year and endless loans for ever increasing house prices.

The smart saw this coming and made a mint, the dumb, as always, pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excepting the relatively tiny amount of physical cash in circulation, our means of exchange is lent at (net) interest to us by the commercial banks. They control its initial allocation by their lending decisions. Because of tax and legal tender legislation, we can have no practical alternative to their expensive and unstable rent-a-currency system. Without the banks' complicity, no significant economic activity takes place. They have far too much power.

The banks have not simply won, at present they control the whole game.

It doesn't have to be this way:

http://www.positivemoney.org.uk

I'm not sure if it's you :) or who it is, but whoever it is that pastes that into the Disqus section of just about every financially related article on the Telegraph website - thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But we (including the banks) are all in this together.

We borrowed all that money, we lived are champagne lifestyles on MEWing and an endless stram of fraction-reserve based credit.

I think a lot of people on this board might disagree with the word "we" in that sentence. But how many are "we" versus "they" if the "they" are the "enlightened" who understand how this all works (I hesitate to use the word "enlightened" because it's more than a little supercillious and patronising, but I can't think of a better word for it)

We all knew it was going on.

I'm not sure that's true, based on the fact that most people wouldn't have known what "it" was. Don't get me wrong, people knew something was odd most especially when moron Brown stood up and said that he'd put an end to boom and bust. My own personal barometer - the "ratio of BMWs to Renaults on the road" picked this up perhaps before I'd even posted here. It's a general feeling. But the herd will be led... by whom, though.

The government knew it when they relaxed the laws, the banks knew it because they designed the system, and we knew it insofar that we didn't care as long as we could have our 4x4's and 3 holidays a year and endless loans for ever increasing house prices.

I'm yet to decide whether this was deliberate deceit of the people in collusion with e.g. the Rothschilds, or simply the fact that the bankers were and are cleverer than Governments. For instance we had the Basel rules, laughable though they were, and by repackaging debt the banks could get around that.

Something analagous perhaps: the Greek riots at the moment. They didn't have to employ socialism. They didn't have to spend more than they had coming in. They didn't have to fiddle the books (or more accurately get someone to do it for them to keep the credit tap runnning). They didn't have to get themselves into the position that they are in. Governments like to spend more than they earn, so the banking system suits them too. Cuts both ways. God forbid they could only spend tax receipts; where would that have got Gordon Brown?

It amuses me watching Merkel and the ECB running around trying to fit a square into a circle and not wanting to be holding the parcel when the music stops. It also amuses me that this is portrayed as the failure of the Euro, as if actually the Euro is in some way to blame. Nice scapegoat. But then the money lent to Greece never really existed anyway, did it. So what does it matter if it's paid back or not?

The smart saw this coming and made a mint, the dumb, as always, pay.

Quite so.Those who see the manipulation and who for example bought gold have done well. However most people simply want to go to work, get paid, come home and go to the pub/watch TV/whatever and they're entitled to do that without being shat on from a great height.

Edited by DTMark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had a chance to re-structure 'the system' and didn't take it. The banks are effectively being rewarded for their irresponsible behaviour by cleaning up on lending at 3-4% above base., whilst offering savers feck all.

And we (Jo Public) have accepted it with barely a whimper.

It'll be interesting to see what happens when rates eventually rise, whether or not the banks can still get away with their current margins...

"The average SVR is now 3.48% above the base rate, compared with 1.95% in September 2008."

http://www.propertycommunity.com/property-in-the-uk/uk-lenders-continue-to-let-down-property-buyers.html

I had some blurb from Nationwide through the post about their AGM and how they have fought hard for savers by launching an account offering 3% (with strict withdrawal conditions). What utter rubbish, Nationwide have not cared about savers for years and are behaving more and more like a bank everyday. They haven't launched a table topping savings account in years. No wonder people left in their droves, yet they still pretend to be a caring mutual!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the "us" that's significant and something of a psychological shift seems to have occured. Even the "man in the street" thinks that the Greek crisis will affect "us" as if the marriage between banking and the state is complete now, inference - they are one and the same. "We" (as in "us", as in the man in the street) lent Greece the money and they're not going to pay "us" back.

I think the 2008 financial crisis showed that private banks have become too closely entwined with everybody's day to day money matters, whilst not even government has much control over them. Govt could have introduced more regulation or encouraged alternative ways of managing lending, investments, savings, pensions, etc. They didn't and we saw that the idea of allowing the banks to go bust, as deserved, was too complicated and potentially destructive for the country. Even worse, they took the weakest possible route to solve the problem and simply threw taxpayer money at the banks whilst not demanding anywhere near enough control in return.

The banks have become de facto state institutions and have been so for decades. It is simply more obvious now. Some of the language used by politicians (often to cover for their actions) and repeated in the media has let this idea that we can't survive without the banks enter general consciousness. Therefore a threat to their stability will necessitate more bailouts and more pain. The thought of rocking the status quo with large reforms is too frightening for many and won't be given time to consider. The average Joe might not be doing spectacularly, but it's better than the unknown. They can pay lip service to disliking the banks whilst checking MSE for the highest rate of return.

We had a chance to re-structure 'the system' and didn't take it. The banks are effectively being rewarded for their irresponsible behaviour by cleaning up on lending at 3-4% above base., whilst offering savers feck all.

Exactly. A massive missed opportunity.

It doesn’t have to be this way:

http://www.positivemoney.org.uk

How long has this site been about? I'm interested because it chimes with a lot of what I've been saying myself. A way of limiting the banks power and stabilising the system.

Incidentally, point 4 on the page about savings should really be in there (not just a recommendation). It's important to give as much opportunity as possible for people to control where their money is used. Many will still happily sign away the right in favour of more profit, but others will make moral decisions and it's these decisions in investment that will shape the future economy. I would prefer our economy to reflect individuals choices more than a small groups unquestioning search for short term profit.

But: what would it take to get the necessary revolution? This whole so called "credit crunch" was entirely predictable (this board got it right) yet here we are. It is the closest that the general populous has ever got to discovering the fraud being perpetrated. And yet, "we're all in it together".

Do you think we're near a tipping point?

Maybe nearer than we have been for a long time, but I lack optimism. Seeing how easily we let Gordon Brown give away everything and more. How we're allowing the coalition to make questionable cuts (they're cutting in the wrong places IMO - too little in the wrong places in fact). Voter turnout for the AV Referendum was 42%. I know some think it was a non issue, my point is that many just didn't know about it, care about it, or have any desire to find out about it. Even though it would have had a significant effect if introduced.

How do you get people engaged in such debates that are seen as 'boring'?

If I knew I'd be doing it.

Easier to do as the banks do, and take over by the backdoor.

Note to self: Read up on psychology of the masses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm yet to decide whether this was deliberate deceit of the people in collusion with e.g. the Rothschilds, or simply the fact that the bankers were and are cleverer than Governments.

I am of the opinion that these events are at the highest levels of international Bogeyman/Rothschild power, desired and manipulated into being.

I also dont think that there would be any more need for micromanagement and/or collusion between these high powered families who are almost never in the media and whom nobody would have heard a bad word against if not for the internet, than there would be need for collusion between a bunch of rats and the bloke who sets them free in the granary, If you know what the nature of a rat is, then you know the prevaling consequences of setting a big bunch of rats free in a granary. You dont have to tell them to eat all the grain, breed like crazy and then eat yet more grain. As for the measures any of the granary maintenance staff might take such as deploying cats, laying rat poison, all you have to do is too make sure that they aren't too successful and your end goal of a rat infested granary with bugger all grain left in it will utlimately be reached sooner or later.

Perhaps the events which would be analogous to the bloke letting the first cage of rats loose in the granary, would be the way that all the main universities have accepted large payments from the financial powers who in particular hijacked the economics department and ensured that an understanding of economic theory which was conducive to the long term goals of thier banking cabal became orthodox. This is why practically none of the 'trained economic experts' (well meaning or not) who fill the economic media with their misguided bile could predict the crash and the coming monetary meltdown before the event, whereas lesser known economists who subscribe to the 'lunatic fringe' of the Austrian school of economics all predicted it well in advance, many of whom wrote spookily accurate books on the matter at a time when our clever bankers and politicians had 'put an end to boom n bust economics'. It is the latter class of people who genrally maintain that a global monetary meltdown, culminating in hyperinflation is on the cards, and advise everyone to put thier wealth into tangible assets.

Edited by BobBobson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "we" in "We're all in this together" - including the banks - places both the parasite and the host on the same side.

Originally I think people thought that phrase meant "all of the people and the government" and the psychological shift I think has occured is to include the banks in that list.

Not sure how big a shift it is. I know many who keep moaning about their Lloyds shares and wishing they had sold a long time ago - at peak, hehe!

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.