Dorkins Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 (edited) So a bank makes dodgy loans between years 2000-2007 and then gets bailed out in 2008. I then start up a business in 2009 and earn £1m and deposit it in the bank why should some of this money be taken from me? Nothing was taken from you in this scenario, you lent it to the bank voluntarily when you deposited it and then the bank wasn't able to pay back the loan. Edited January 4, 2014 by Dorkins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dances with sheeple Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Nothing was taken from you in this scenario, you lent it to the bank voluntarily when you deposited it and then the bank wasn't able to pay back the loan. That isn`t how people view banks though, and if they try to take deposits in the UK all hell will break loose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venger Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Nothing was taken from you in this scenario, you lent it to the bank voluntarily when you deposited it and then the bank wasn't able to pay back the loan. If savers get hurt, the quid pro quo is asset holders should see the value of their holdings fall by x5 more. Not lock in all their gains. So many asset holders loving the idea of this savings skim. Banks should sell off their affected holdings cheap, causing all asset holders to see value correction, bringing down purchase value for savers, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dances with sheeple Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 If savers get hurt, the quid pro quo is asset holders should see the value of their holdings fall by x5 more. Not lock in all their gains. So many asset holders loving the idea of this savings skim. Banks should sell off their affected holdings cheap, causing all asset holders to see value correction, bringing down purchase value for savers, If savers get hurt "asset" holders (property debt chumps) will have even LESS chance of selling, nicking deposits is lose lose for the Ponzi Bring it on, I will keep mine in my socks like the train jumpers did in the 30`s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gf3 Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 That isn`t how people view banks though, and if they try to take deposits in the UK all hell will break loose. Lets face it we have all been left in the dark. Schools don't tell you about fractional reserve banking. I am quite ashamed that I was in my forty's before I knew.how the money system works. And I have always been quite money orientated. It wasn't until the credit crunch that I went out on a crusade to find out what had happened that I leant what I know today. People on here criticise others for there financial choices but you may as well lick your finger and hold it in the air to Know what is going to happen next. Some win some lose. The safest bet is to spread your money around under different asset classes and hope you don't lose it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venger Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 (edited) If savers get hurt "asset" holders (property debt chumps) will have even LESS chance of selling, nicking deposits is lose lose for the Ponzi Bring it on, I will keep mine in my socks like the train jumpers did in the 30`s. It bugs me immensely that some of the same people still saying house prices aren't too expensive, happy about HTB, who've lived a life in finance... who've been walking hard-ons for property, equities, massive incomes over they years and happy to spend it. Reaped HPI in nicest of areas ..... versus more prudent people who knew it was unsustainable. Now the people at the top, with all of the gain, happy about QE / 0.5% base rates supporting their fantasynomics, now want to see savers raided. It's not too much in savings which has brought this problem about. It's overvalued assets and people living in a fantasy world for decades, especially to what they think their homes are worth. Savers saved as a unit of account, against future purchases/value on assets and other investments. Those assets are what need big value downward haircut change. When it's been obvious for decades asset prices can't continue to rise forever, and so many unfunded liabilities... they want the savers to be sacrificed so they remain at the top. 2009 http://www.theguardi...nancial-pyramid Edited January 5, 2014 by Venger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.