Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Protesting Against The Bankers


Recommended Posts

The one thing that's noticeably absent from the protestors' analysis is any mention of the housing market. The country wouldn't be in such a mess if we hadn't collectively inflated the price of housing using borrowed money, the banks are an easy target but I'm not convinced that they're entirely to blame.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I see no reason for any confusion. This group has a website that any journalist can access from anywhere to see exactly what they are protesting about.

There seems to be plenty of info on the Occupy website.

It appears to be a groundswell of dissatisfaction fed up with the contempt with which the majority are being treated.

As for the anger of the masses, it might be a question of where do you start? The issues and the trail of blame quite complex. Of course, the politicians and their lackies in the media would love to simply pigeon hole the protesters to make it easier to dilute/neutralise.

I read that UK Uncut were wanting to join up, for me, that would undermine things (same with anything 'environmental') - an organisation with political motives that seem not to understand why we are in this situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Are not the people who took the mortgages, remortgages and cheap credit also to blame?

If your neighbour borrows more, he can outbid you on that house. This is turn forces you to borrow more to outbid again. Since shelter is a necessity, you can not choose not to play. Prices spiral upwards as each man tries to outbid the other. The end result is that each of them pays far more for the house than if they had not competed. Now they are all debt slaves owing most of their life's production to the bank. The banks knew what they were doing by offering this endless credit.

If banking were a competitive industry, then margins would be very low. If margins were very low, they could not pay huge bonuses. In a perfect market there is no profit at all. Thus banking is revealed to be a cartel. They pick up the profits in the good years, pass the losses to the public in the bad. All the while paying themselves huge bonuses. The government takes money from you via tax and by inflating away your savings and passes it to their buddies in the banks. Once the minister leaves office, he is rewarded by a consultancy. Thus there is a conspiracy, between banks and government, against the public.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The one thing that's noticeably absent from the protestors' analysis is any mention of the housing market. The country wouldn't be in such a mess if we hadn't collectively inflated the price of housing using borrowed money, the banks are an easy target but I'm not convinced that they're entirely to blame.

Nothing has been borrowed.

Credit still isn't money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any problem with bankers being greedy. The problem is when the government uses the taxpayers money to bail out greedy bankers who have screwed up. In a real capitalist world the ones who screwed up would go bust.

Agreed - to a point. It was/is probably true. However, this wasn't a case of a simple failure of a few businesses with an unsustainable model. This was a business that had become so entwined with the rest of the economy that, IMHO, governments genuinely and correctly believed that they couldn't allow it to collapse.

Banking had become a destructive creeper that had so undermined the structures it had infested that the parasite was the only thing keeping the structures standing.

I'm not sure that capitalism has an answer to this problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The one thing that's noticeably absent from the protestors' analysis is any mention of the housing market. The country wouldn't be in such a mess if we hadn't collectively inflated the price of housing using borrowed money, the banks are an easy target but I'm not convinced that they're entirely to blame.

IMHO The clue is in your italics, it is precisely because we didn't do it collectively that Politicians / Bankers are to blame.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

Edited by iamdamosuzuki
Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed - to a point. It was/is probably true. However, this wasn't a case of a simple failure of a few businesses with an unsustainable model. This was a business that had become so entwined with the rest of the economy that, IMHO, governments genuinely and correctly believed that they couldn't allow it to collapse.

Banking had become a destructive creeper that had so undermined the structures it had infested that the parasite was the only thing keeping the structures standing.

I'm not sure that capitalism has an answer to this problem.

I would tend to think that governments allowed (or were bribed, take your pick) themselves to believe that banks were too important to fail and so refused to let them go. Don't forget, it's not that long since Berings and BCCI wer let go. The most that governments should hsve done was to give some degree of protection to small retail depositors. I say small so that depositors would exercise some care about where they put their savings. The market would sort itself out then. I remember that ex BCCI people were unemployable in the banking sector. Ex BCCI depositors, I can't remember what, if any compensation they got, were very unhappy but I bet that they looked beyond a high headline rate of interest when depositing money in future. To keep the banking system working properly the bad performers have to be allowed to go bust. And by bad performers I mean either badly managed or just crooked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would tend to think that governments allowed (or were bribed, take your pick) themselves to believe that banks were too important to fail and so refused to let them go. Don't forget, it's not that long since Berings and BCCI wer let go. The most that governments should hsve done was to give some degree of protection to small retail depositors. I say small so that depositors would exercise some care about where they put their savings. The market would sort itself out then. I remember that ex BCCI people were unemployable in the banking sector. Ex BCCI depositors, I can't remember what, if any compensation they got, were very unhappy but I bet that they looked beyond a high headline rate of interest when depositing money in future. To keep the banking system working properly the bad performers have to be allowed to go bust. And by bad performers I mean either badly managed or just crooked.

Have you heard of chain-reaction and / or counter-party contagion?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing has been borrowed.

Credit still isn't money.

Details Injin, details.

Individuals pledged their future labour in credit form not because they wanted or needed additional housing but because they thought it was a sure-fire way of getting other people to repay them (with extra) in the future. For a long time it was a one way bet and it wasn't only the bankers that were making money.

Don't reply with anything about credit not being money or banking fraud, I know your opinions on this matter and they suck. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO The clue is in your italics, it is precisely because we didn't do it collectively that Politicians / Bankers are to blame.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

Homeowners were making out like bandits too, but it's a bit of an intellectual stretch for the Occupy crew to acknowledge this injustice so they plump for the low hanging fruit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope.

The average punter doesn't understand what he's signed up to. You can prove this to yourself simply by walking out the door, wandering down the high street and asking the people you find questions.

If you don't understand what you've signed up to, it's hard to say the contracts are valid (no meeting of minds.) If you don't understand what you've signed up to and have been deliberately left in the dark so that the other party makes more money out of it, it's hard to say this isn't fraud.

I guess the blame the average person carries is in being gullible.

I take it that is meant as a facetious set of comments?

Otherwwise ignorance would be an excuse to commit crimes too. I didn't know and I didn't bother to find out so that's me off the hook.

It staggers me still that people will spend half a million on a loan with 'little understandting and taking little responsibility' for the situation. If you don't understand something you can pay to find the answer. Or you can save a few hundred pounds and then stand around pointing fingers when it all goes wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Details Injin, details.

Individuals pledged their future labour in credit form not because they wanted or needed additional housing but because they thought it was a sure-fire way of getting other people to repay them (with extra) in the future. For a long time it was a one way bet and it wasn't only the bankers that were making money.

Don't reply with anything about credit not being money or banking fraud, I know your opinions on this matter and they suck. ;)

No one pledged credit.

They asked to borrow money and were lied to.

I don't have an opinion on the matter, I just have facts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Homeowners were making out like bandits too, but it's a bit of an intellectual stretch for the Occupy crew to acknowledge this injustice so they plump for the low hanging fruit.

The homeowners were making money almost accidently in most cases, and in 98% of cases without malice.

The bankers were cynically bundling mortgages together that they knew were junk and getting it stamped AAA then shipped on to pension funds. Then when it all blew up, used their influence to (i) escape prosecution and (ii) get public funds to bail them out.

The UK national debt didn't go up by around 900 billion pounds to bail out homeowners. It did however increase by that much in order to bail out bankers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The homeowners were making money almost accidently in most cases, and in 98% of cases without malice.

Homeowners were collectively trousering £billions (possibly £trillions) in unearned capital gains during the boom, this wasn't an accident it's how the monetary and fiscal systems are designed to operate. Why were domestic rates abolished in 1990 and replaced with the poll tax for example? Because the government wanted to reduce the taxes paid specifically by homeowners and shift them onto society in general, it's the same reason they've put off the council tax rebanding for over two decades, having upto date states would make homeowners feel uneasy, they prefer to casually drop the value of their homes into conversation at dinner parties.

The UK national debt didn't go up by around 900 billion pounds to bail out homeowners. It did however increase by that much in order to bail out bankers.

The government and the Bank of England have openly admitted to targeting "asset" prices, you don't have to be Alan Greenspan to work out what they mean by that.

Edited by Authoritarian
Link to post
Share on other sites

Homeowners were collectively trousering £billions (possibly £trillions) in unearned capital gains during the boom, this wasn't an accident it's how the monetary and fiscal systems are designed to operate. Why were domestic rates abolished in 1990 and replaced with the poll tax for example? Because the government wanted to reduce the taxes paid specifically by homeowners and shift them onto society in general, it's the same reason they've put off the council tax rebanding for over two decades, having upto date states would make homeowners feel uneasy, they prefer to casually drop the value of their homes into conversation at dinner parties.

The homeowners may very well have trousered billions, but you still haven't really rebutted my point.

The homeowners were just doing what they do, buying homes and living in them, then buying another house 5 or 6 years down the line when the original was too small or in the wrong place, etc. You may argue that some people "flipped" homes, etc. but the proportion of people doing so can't have been more than 0.5% of the total number of homeowners. What proportion of Investment Banks was selling CDOs?

The bankers designed the system, KNOWING that it would blow up at some point, but not caring and after years of being the poster boys for capitalism, they go cap in hand to the state at the first sign of trouble.

It's the difference between premeditated murder, and a train driver killing someone who is crossing the train tracks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, appalling tenancy laws. And yet a fair number of us manage to rent.

I think the majority of people who rent in the UK, do so not because of choice, but due to lack of other options like buying.

With tenancy laws more like those in Germany and long-term tenancy agreements, I'm sure that would change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The homeowners may very well have trousered billions, but you still haven't really rebutted my point.

The homeowners were just doing what they do, buying homes and living in them, then buying another house 5 or 6 years down the line when the original was too small or in the wrong place, etc. You may argue that some people "flipped" homes, etc. but the proportion of people doing so can't have been more than 0.5% of the total number of homeowners. What proportion of Investment Banks was selling CDOs?

The bankers designed the system, KNOWING that it would blow up at some point, but not caring and after years of being the poster boys for capitalism, they go cap in hand to the state at the first sign of trouble.

It's the difference between premeditated murder, and a train driver killing someone who is crossing the train tracks.

Ok then, what about the planning laws? The home owning NIMBYs have made even small scale development impossible as they're concerned the value of their homes will be reduced with the extra competition. We must have some of the tightest building restrictions in the world because the economy has been sewn up by a cartel of owners that don't want any activity going on without their explicit consent.

Edited by Authoritarian
Link to post
Share on other sites

No one pledged credit.

They asked to borrow money and were lied to.

I don't have an opinion on the matter, I just have facts.

What are the names of these people? Do you have their email addresses so I can get verification of your "facts"?

Edited by Police
Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the names of these people? Do you have their email addresses so I can get verification of your "facts"?

You'll find them on the high street.

Pop down and ask a few hundred people some questions like I have.

Then, when you find out I am right, come on back and confirm. 90% + of people haven't got the slightest clue about "bank credit" or any of that shit. they think that the numbers they see on the screen are 1;1 correlated with pound notes and coins somewhere in a vault.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll find them on the high street.

Pop down and ask a few hundred people some questions like I have.

Then, when you find out I am right, come on back and confirm. 90% + of people haven't got the slightest clue about "bank credit" or any of that shit. they think that the numbers they see on the screen are 1;1 correlated with pound notes and coins somewhere in a vault.

Polls aren't conclusive as Neil Kinnock can attest to.

So, just an opinion then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok then, what about the planning laws? The home owning NIMBYs have made even small scale development impossible as they're concerned the value of their homes will be reduced with the extra competition. We must have some of the tightest building restrictions in the world because the economy has been sewn up by a cartel of owners that don't want any activity going on without their explicit consent.

But the only way they can enforce their view is by the state - and the bankers enable the state to be this intrusive.

Not getting away from this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The bankers designed the system, KNOWING that it would blow up at some point, but not caring and after years of being the poster boys for capitalism, they go cap in hand to the state at the first sign of trouble.

Sums it up in a paragraph- the cynicism and the utter lack of any kind of principles. The point about the bankers is exactly same point about any other profession- there are built in expectations in terms of behaviour.

So when Goldmans sells a client a bag of securities that are so toxic they themselves are taking out insurance based on them failing, we have moved way beyond caveat emptor into the realms of outright fraud.

The only reason bankers have not been prosecuted is because they have effectively bought immunity with campaign contributions.

And for a profession that even now pay's itself billions based on it's lending expertise to claim they are victims of those they lend to is sheer comedy.

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.

  • 429 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.