Most bankers are crooks

[redruby]

I have watched the programme on iplayer and I think a few of the posters on here should watch it before spouting utter nonsense.

 

And in response to the store card misselling point - who in all honesty would read through a page or more of small print after being offering a discount incentive at a till for signing up for a store card? And even if they did, would someone without a legal background it all? No - and the people behind flogging them know it.

[andyofborg]

Well done that man on Qt who simply asked that all the political leaders just pull together and help pull us out of this mess.

 

yes, but they are incapable of doing that not because they are in other peoples pockets but because they have neither the intellect, imagination nor experience to be able to do anything.

[ultimatesens]

1. Bring the issuance of currency under democratic control. Remove the "independance" of the bank of England (who does that serve anyway?).

 

The Bank of England sets interest rates independently of any government, therefore they look for more long term results from their monetary policy than a government would as it is typically vying for a boost before the next election

 

Re-read; I said "bring the issuance of currency under democratic control." NEW SENTANCE "Remove the independance of the bank of England." As I understand it, private banks issue most of our currency in the U.K. not the bank of England. Why should we the people pay interest to the shareholders of a bank (say HSBC) when the money it lends us is printed out of nothing and backed by nothing more than the I.O.U. we gave them in the first place? Why doesn't the government "sell" its "bonds" directly to council workers and nurses in the form of currency and cut out the banker middlemen?

 

The bank of England does much more than simply set interest rates.The bank sets monetary policy in a way that helps the interests of other private comercial banks again, at the expense of the British people. Monetary policy is too important to be left to a shadowy independant bank of England populated by ex bankers and establishment economists. Let's get some cameras in there!

 

2. Go over the bankers books with a fine tooth comb. Prosecute the directors of those banks found guilty of accounting fraud. Seize their assets to repay depositors who's money they lost.

 

Fine with that, however I don't think the major issue was banks committing fraud. They were selling crap products which were getting AAA ratings from the ratings agencies because the products were so complex they didn't understand.

 

I don't think you know what the major issues were because we haven't had a good look at the banks books yet. Credit ratings agencies are supposedly in the business of rating assets. If they don't know what the rating of an asset is because they don't understand it then they can either say "we don't know" or they can FIND OUT (or as a third option they can say AAA at the behest of the banks)

 

3. Abolish british tax havens. Charge foreign companies the difference in tax before they are allowed to operate in the U.K.

 

OK I see where you are coming from, however it would reduce foreign investment in the UK. Foreign investment has been very good for us and created a lot of jobs, created a lot of wealth and in turn tax receipts. The issue is that unless you have an international tax system where everyone pays the same tax.

I understand that companies would rather not pay any tax. Sure they would like a free ride by basing their H.Q. in Antarctica or wherever else. You are correct that we need an international tax system to avoid this. So to sell to U.K. consumers they must pay a U.K. tax either by basing their company here or paying a tarrif for importing goods. We do not have an international tax system therefore protectionism it must be. The alternative "free trade" doesn't work without the international tax system you mentioned. Companies will eventually move all capital and production to the most business friendly country ie: the one with zero corporate tax and legalised slavery, obviously. That is the situation we currently find ourselves in. A race to the bottom against chinese labourers. Businesses want to have their cake and eat it, operate out of the best tax havens and not pay anything to ship those goods to U.K. markets. That is why I followed up by saying that that we would charge them the difference before they operate in the U.K. At the end of the day companies don't build factories for the sake of it rather they are built to sell products. Foreign investment can take it or leave it. If you want to operate in the U.K. and sell to U.K. consumers then they have to follow U.K. rules. Sure you might not make as much money but some money is better than no money right. 50 million customers here if you want them. Ford won't build factories here? won't be selling any cars here then either .

 

4. Ban usuary, the charging of interest on loans.

How would this work?

 

I honestly don't know. This would obviously take some time to implement and would require firstly substantial monetary reform, moving from a debt based economy to a debt-free economy. I do personally believe however that usuary is morally wrong.

 

5. Cease all borrowing against the international bond market. If we need to borrow money we can print it ourselves.

 

Yes like Zimbabwe.

 

No not like Zimbabwe, more like Barclays, HSBC, HBOS, quntitative easing et al. If printing money out of thin air creates = hyperinflation (which I assume is what you're suggesting), then why can high street banks get away with it every day? Banks at one time used to actually HAVE the money they lent out. Not so anymore. Now it's just printed out of thin air. So if banks can do it why can't the government?....oh yes that's it now I remember, because only the bank of England decides who can and can't do that. Cui bono?

 

6. Pay off the national debt. Tell the Rothschilds to take a running jump. (Like Hugo Chavez did in Venezuala). P

 

pay off the national debt with what money? Not sure what Chavez did and can't find anything on it

 

http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=61836

 

Currently national debt is paid by taking out new debts. I suggest we print the money we need to pay it all off in one go and stop borrowing. Sure that would result in a devaluation of our currency and inflation but I say its better to take that hit now than keep paying ever increasing interest payments till the end of time. The interest this year was £42.9 billion. Thats DISGUSTING. £42.9 billion of the national budget PRIVATIZED just like that!

 

7. Ban the sale/purchase of dodgy derivatives by companies operating in the U.K. (Like they did in Brazil)

 

Did they? I thought they just put a 1% tax on trades and made sure all companies were registered and approved Bank of Brazil.

I heard this on the radio. I'm trying to get a source for you. It sounds like a good idea to me though

 

8. Print the money needed to get the economy going again. Rather than hand the money over to banks, use it to invest in infrastructure, green energy and social programs (Like they did in Australia).

Not a fan of printing the money but would gladly support increase in spending on infrastructure. Nuclear power instead of windmills. Social programs? Not more benefits!!

 

We both agree that spending on infrastructure helps, so at least we have SOME common ground. Nuclear power though? Are you insane? The most expensive way of boiling water ever devised. Nice and cheep if you don't have to store the waste forever. Nice and cheep if you don't have to pay the costs of cleanup and healthcare after accidents. We hear now that "companies will be required to dispose of the waste," but no prizes for guessing how that will turn out. As soon as they have run out off room for nuclear waste in the carpark they will sell their shares to an unsuspecting buyer who will promptly go bust and guess who will end up footing the bill for desposing of all the waste then? No doubt the former owners will take up short positions on their former shares to boot. Nuclear power is only profitable if you outsource the costs (including all the research) to the taxpayer.

 

I agree some welfare should be cut. Lets start with the £600 billion pound welfare check we gave the banks before we go after all those greedy, power wielding, welfare mothers.

 

 

9. Ban lobbying in politics by powerfull private interests.

 

Ban all lobbying, I'm not a fan of the unions being able to lobby Labour either or Greenpeace etc., Ban political whips too, people vote for their MP not a party per se, therefore the voters wants should come before those of the party

 

I said powerfull "private" interests. Unions are democratic. They should be allowed to lobby government as much as they want on behalf of their members. I'd also support giving over control of entire companies above a certain size to their union membership. How do you like that!

 

I also support the idea of banning whips too in principal.

10. Impose a cap on wealth. 100% tax rate above a certain profit level.

 

Reduces investment, innovation and growth, why would anyone want to grow their business beyond a certain level if the government takes all the money. People are greedy, it's in their nature. Also is this per company or person?

 

That might be your nature, don't project your values on everybody else. People will want to reach that initial level. Beyond that it's up to them. If they choose not to work then that's fine, more opportunities for the rest of us. Growth would happen in other companies as they filled the vacancies left behind by the company that didn't want to get any bigger. How would this stiffle innovation? The way I see it innovation is stifled by huge mega corporations operating cartels and crushing smaller companies. A limit on the size of companies would INCREASE competition. I was thinking a cap for both companies and individuals but with different rules for each.

 

11. Insist on openness and accountability at the world bank/IMF level. Insist that our representatives broadcast the dialogue of these meetings. Implement a regime of zero privacy at the top of the social heirarchy. You want power? it will cost you your privacy. The more power you have the more intrusive is the surveilance. Don't like it, don't work in politics.

 

Zero privacy? No one would sacrifice privacy to work in politics.

I would and I'm sure many others would too.

 

Maybe we'd start getting a more honest calibre of politician. Politicians have a good enough job giving out orders and getting to be in charge of things. That is rewarding in itself. Secrecy is antithetical to popular democracy. The planning and meeting that goes on behind closed doors is what has lead to all the problems we have in society today. Scandal after scandal, leak after leak. The people with power have proven time and again they can't be trusted and nor should they be. Democracy isn't about trust, rather it is about distrust, insisting on openness and accountability.

 

12. Nationalise banking institutions operating in the U.K. break them up so they can never again threaten the fabric of society. Ban banks that have excessive leverage.

 

Break up banks so they are not too big to fail, nationalise them for a time if required but then sell them off again when the time is right to benefit the tax payer. If they screw up next time just let them fail, the market will sort it out

 

I agree with you mostly here although I do not see why we should sell a profitable bank which we own. Lets keep it and use the profit to pay for schools and housing etc. Hell, we could even use the profit to lower some of those bank charges! Also tell me the logic in saving a bankrupt bank? Why not just start our own peoples bank? We can even buy all the office buildings and stuff from the old bank at firesale prices now they are bust.

 

Before you all jump down my throat with the argument that rich companies will all move overseas....

 

GOOD. That will open up the market here for new companies to replace them. The services they offered can be offered by British workers in British companies. Can't sell your cars in Britain because the tax laws are too invasive? GOOD, Selfish greedy tax avoiding corporate slime is not welcome here. British companies will manufacture British cars and sell them to british consumers instead. You want to do business in this market, you play by our rules.

 

Without going into too much detail you would lose a lot of jobs that wont instantly be replaced by some magic British companies who are not greedy, secondly you would drive up inflation.

You are correct, there will be a downside. Jobs won't be replaced instantly. Maybe our politicians should have listened to the warnings from people on the left back when they were gutting our manufacturing industry. Re-building it will be difficult because of the mess we are left in. Lets face it though, jobs are already being lost at an alarming rate and inflation is already about to go through the roof. The solutions offered to us by the banks and the wealthy are having exactly that effect.

 

Also, why exactly would this drive up inflation?

 

Where does the money come from to start new manufacturing businesses? It comes from the £600bn we found instantly to pay off the bankers. If they have money for banker welfare they have money for investment in jobs.

 

£600bn banker bailout?? Most of that was in guarantees, not cold hard cash, which doesn't work when building infrastructure

I fail to see the difference. If we guarantee a bank loan which then fails then we have to stump up cold hard cash. Why not lend the money to small businesses ourselves? If were on the hook for it anyway, what exactly is the point of a bankrupt bank lending out the money we used to recapitalise it, with us acting as underwriters for the loan? Is it just so that banks can continue to make a profit without actually doing anything risky? The banks are as broke as we are (probably more so). All they are doing is taking the recapitalisation fund we gave them and lending it out many many times over. We can do that ourselves without paying profits to wealthy shareholders.

[Sir Enoch]

Most bankers are crooks

 

No they aren't!

 

The counter clerk at your local bank has done nothing wrong, the geezer who works at the call centre has done nothing wrong, the woman who works at the processing centre has done nothing wrong ....

 

... these are the vast majority of people who work at banks. Honest, hard working people doing a variety of jobs that we all need. Without them we wouldn't have our money when we needed it, our mortgages or our loans, etc.

 

Yes they are some very fat cats in banking, as in everyother private enterprise. The taxpayer shouldn't have to cough up to pay for their mistakes, agreed. But to title the thread "most bankers are crooks" is incorrect and ignorant.

[ultimatesens]

They did, and other banks bought into this idea because it makes money, short term, (though I'd argue the 'no money' point, as this would incorrectly be categorising (or look like impying) 'no money - as no job'). I've never denied that. If you used the word 'income', then we could be clearer.

 

No I mean NO MONEY as in BANKRUPT. Massive debts, assets that are little more than toilet paper. They print the money for loans out of fresh air didn't you know.

 

Maybe in the past, but things have moved on. If a bank knows it can sell a mortgage on to someone else (via investors), then they would lose money if they didn't keep up with competitors.

 

In my opinion it is not O.K. to make a dodgey loan to somebody who you know cant pay it back and then sell that loan to an investor telling him it's AAA safe? Isn't that FRAUD? How would refraining from this practice loose them money?

 

You're right that a dishonest banker wouldn't care. Why would he/she? If they are dishonest, then they aren't honest.

 

As you correctly pointed out dihonest bankers wouldn't care. They all did this for the most part so all bankers are dishonest eg:crooks

 

Of course it does. But like I pointed out in page 3, governments like lending and spending because spending makes people happy. Votes.

 

They don't exactly shout from the rooftops about how much they are borrowing in our name. Most people don't really think about where governments are getting all the money from and nor should they have to. The media are there to inform us and keeping governments in check. Where were they? People assume it all comes from taxes like it should. Also I wasn't particuarly refering to sovereign debt but since you brought it up.

 

You can only trick people into doing things, when they are naïve. Most people are.

 

Not true. That's why we have laws against fraud and false advertising and such. Also when it's the experts who are lying, what chance does that give you? If three of the largest credit reference agencies in the world told you it was AAA, why wouldn't you beleive it?

 

It's not. I posted that earlier. You just quoted something else that I said.

 

O.K. I agree with you then.

[ultimatesens]

 

Secondly you didn't respond to my point about the unions not backing the closure of the ports and again how is bullying legitimate businesses in any way democratic?

 

No you are quite right and I stand corrected. The union leadership has explicitly stated that it does NOT back the port shutdown. A suprise to be sure.

 

Popular protest on the other hand, IS inherently democratic. The union leadership may not be officially going along with the action this time but many of the members have expressed support for it. Strict rules exist to stiffle industrial action and make it virtually impossible. The union has not had the time to conduct a vote and members risk dismissal if they take part in the action. It would be difficult for OWS to succeed here without at least some assistance from the workers at the ports so let's see how they do on Monday.

 

When ordinary people organise and work together in large numbers to take control over their own political lives they are participating in popular democracy.

 

I don't know about bullying legitimate businesses. Depends what "legitimate" and "bullying" mean. Usually it's the other way around. Businessess have all the money, hold all the cards and often bully individuals and workers. It's good when people work together to defend themselves. From this kind of direct action we have won key fundamental rights. The right to organise, the right to vote (as inadequate as it is) the right to a living wage, universal healthcare, unemployment and sickness benefit the list goes on and on.

 

If it were left up to the wealthy we would still have child labour and slavery working in mills till the day you die, with no health and safety, no pension and no right to vote. Don't forget when advances came they had to be dragged kicking and screaming from the claws of unwilling and greedy "owners."

[Anna B]

No they aren't!

 

The counter clerk at your local bank has done nothing wrong, the geezer who works at the call centre has done nothing wrong, the woman who works at the processing centre has done nothing wrong ....

 

... these are the vast majority of people who work at banks. Honest, hard working people doing a variety of jobs that we all need. Without them we wouldn't have our money when we needed it, our mortgages or our loans, etc.

 

Yes they are some very fat cats in banking, as in everyother private enterprise. The taxpayer shouldn't have to cough up to pay for their mistakes, agreed. But to title the thread "most bankers are crooks" is incorrect and ignorant.

 

I've already said on an earlier post that it isn't fair to include the worker bees in with the super rich bankers. (although someone might want to invoke the 've vere only obeying ze

orders' clause..)

 

The 'most bankers are crooks' headline is intended to provoke argument/discussion, and it has.

[*_ash_*]

No I mean NO MONEY as in BANKRUPT. Massive debts, assets that are little more than toilet paper. They print the money for loans out of fresh air didn't you know.

 

You did say 'they chose to lend to people with no money' - which I perhaps took literally (see italics) rather than what I guess you what meant was - 'they allowed anyone/everyone, regardless of income'...

 

In my opinion it is not O.K. to make a dodgey loan to somebody who you know cant pay it back and then sell that loan to an investor telling him it's AAA safe? Isn't that FRAUD? How would refraining from this practice loose them money?

 

You're implying things... I never said it was O.K., nor that it wasn't fraud.

 

You said 'A banks job is to assess risk.', to which I said 'maybe in the past, but things have moved on', and 'If a bank knows it can sell a mortgage on to someone else (via investors), then they would lose money if they didn't keep up with competitors.'.

 

I was making the point that a bank's job isn't the same as in the past. And that if they don't keep up with competition, then they will fail. That is more of a realistic point - than what I personally consider to be ok or not.

 

As you correctly pointed out dihonest bankers wouldn't care. They all did this for the most part so all bankers are dishonest eg:crooks

 

None of the people of whom got these bonuses will ever talk I don't think. There's no reason for them to. Nor the non-bankers whose previously or presently [at the time] owned properties that soared in value. That was my earlier point to AnnaB. How many posts has this forum had?... thousands?, I think we've seen it all, but I've NEVER seen a poster complain about their house value during this times. Find me one (with a date earlier than this post!), and I'll eat my hat.

 

They don't exactly shout from the rooftops about how much they are borrowing in our name. Most people don't really think about where governments are getting all the money from and nor should they have to. The media are there to inform us and keeping governments in check. Where were they? People assume it all comes from taxes like it should. Also I wasn't particuarly refering to sovereign debt but since you brought it up.

 

Maybe our education system needs re-evaluating

 

You can only trick people into doing things, when they are naïve. Most people are.

Not true. That's why we have laws against fraud and false advertising and such. Also when it's the experts who are lying, what chance does that give you? If three of the largest credit reference agencies in the world told you it was AAA, why wouldn't you beleive it?

 

You say not true... then try and justify it, with something that actually agrees with me?...

 

 

Also when it's the experts who are lying, what chance does that give you?

Do you mean you think I'm naïve? Or that most are, like I said?

 

 

O.K. I agree with you then.

 

[spooky3]

Does everyone benefit from the bankers actions through interest on savings and lower interest on loans? Therefore should you close all your bank accounts?

 

Would it be preferable for all loans be charged at the rates of these "pay day loan" rates?

[Anna B]

Does everyone benefit from the bankers actions through interest on savings and lower interest on loans? Therefore should you close all your bank accounts?

 

Would it be preferable for all loans be charged at the rates of these "pay day loan" rates?

 

Interest rates on savings have never been lower. So those whe were prudent throughout the rampant borrowing years and saved, are now being punished. They are seeing their savings diminish at 5% a year through inflation, and it will probably get worse. Another reason to be very angry with banks.

 

It's a pity anyone would need to borrow from 'pay day' loans at extortionate rates of interest. Unfortunately it's another sign of the times. They would be better off looking for a credit union.