comment by CurlyBlackBonce (U18853)
posted 9 minutes ago
The big problem that I see with bailing out the banks is that the money never came back out.
Why didn't the Bank of England lend directly to the public? They could have taken over failed banks, loaned money to us at a decent rate. We would have carried on buying houses and cars etc.
The car industry would not have laid of thousands, the construction industry would have continued to employ.
The BofE would have got better returns from us than they do the banks, the government would have had tax income.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree absolutely, it would have taken the government barely 3 months to set up a bank of its own, and then any bailout cash could have gone to those who would have spent it immediately on tangible goods rather than to the banks to bid up the price of whatever assets are their flavour of the month.
In fact, it would have been so easy to do, that you assume that the govt chose to do it via bailouts and QE for reasons other than stimulating the economy.
England just like America is set up to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, that's why.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
No, the bailout money hasn't made the shareholders rich, though others have done ok...
======================================================
I know, bonuses for being sh.it....
The EU wants to restrict bank bonuses, because they take the view that Banks have a social responsibility other than just feeding at the trough (which is pretty hard to argue against, given what happened in 2008).......but have a guess which country is fighting against this EU measure?....
We'll take the bonuses, you pay the subsidies when we fail. It's quite a deal.
comment by Wessie Road (U10652)
posted 2 minutes ago
No, the bailout money hasn't made the shareholders rich, though others have done ok...
======================================================
I know, bonuses for being sh.it....
The EU wants to restrict bank bonuses, because they take the view that Banks have a social responsibility other than just feeding at the trough (which is pretty hard to argue against, given what happened in 2008).......but have a guess which country is fighting against this EU measure?....
We'll take the bonuses, you pay the subsidies when we fail. It's quite a deal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A terrific deal, we give them the money to shore up their finances, they take a small part to rebuild their capital base but use most of it to continue paying huge bonuses (and raising salaries whilst they are at it), and even when we own 80% of a company, as we do with RBS, we do nothing about it.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
What a ridiculous idea, now those who had debts wiped can work up fresh ones.
What a ridiculous idea, now those who had debts wiped can work up fresh ones.
=======================================================
It’s only costing about 20m, and they estimate that it’ll help 60,000 people.
The Royal Family costs 36m a year (up by only 2m on last year, so the austerity’s really biting), and it only helps a few people, so what the Croats are doing is a lost more cost-effective.
(We spend 1m a year on the Royal gas-bill, and 400k on the Majesty’s booze).
Not that I mind helping the Royal Family out....they’re brought up to be chocolate teapots, so they can’t really help it, and people seem to like following the soap-opera of their lives, bless them, so I don’t begrudge anybody the little pleasures they get from camping on the pavement all night and watching them walk past.
It’s just that what the Croats are doing with the money is a lot more cost-effective. If you’re going to give your money away, I personally would rather it was spent on helping 60,000 people have an easier life than just one family, and it may even help to stimulate the economy.
And we could easily afford to do both, tbh.
"The Royal Family costs 36m a year "
Oh dear.
If only you had any idea how much money the royal family generates for this country.
Oh dear.
If only you had any idea how much money the royal family generates for this country.
===========================================================
I know how much they pretend to generate, most of it premised on assumptions that are impossible to prove. (and on the assumption that none of the money would be generated anyway if they didn’t exist).
The 35m is something of an under-estimate too, as it doesn't include things like security. But as I said, I’m happy for people to collude in this delusion if they enjoy it, and I don’t begrudge the money.
As Mickey Flanagan says, when a man wears a wig, he demands of the people that know him to collude in the delusion that he has a barnet, and as with the Royal Family, I don’t resent the collusion, I just find it amusing.
I have looked it up several times and the average estimated OVERALL cost of the royal family to the tax payer correlates with the figure provided above.
Having traveled all over the world IMO the royals do more than pay for themselves. They're far more revered abroad than a lot of people realise and definitely do help tourism hugely.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Wouldn't argue with a word of it Wessie.
Wouldn't dare!
Sign in if you want to comment
Croatian Banks Write off Debts owed by poor
Page 2 of 2
posted on 3/2/15
comment by CurlyBlackBonce (U18853)
posted 9 minutes ago
The big problem that I see with bailing out the banks is that the money never came back out.
Why didn't the Bank of England lend directly to the public? They could have taken over failed banks, loaned money to us at a decent rate. We would have carried on buying houses and cars etc.
The car industry would not have laid of thousands, the construction industry would have continued to employ.
The BofE would have got better returns from us than they do the banks, the government would have had tax income.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree absolutely, it would have taken the government barely 3 months to set up a bank of its own, and then any bailout cash could have gone to those who would have spent it immediately on tangible goods rather than to the banks to bid up the price of whatever assets are their flavour of the month.
In fact, it would have been so easy to do, that you assume that the govt chose to do it via bailouts and QE for reasons other than stimulating the economy.
posted on 3/2/15
England just like America is set up to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, that's why.
posted on 3/2/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 3/2/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 3/2/15
No, the bailout money hasn't made the shareholders rich, though others have done ok...
======================================================
I know, bonuses for being sh.it....
The EU wants to restrict bank bonuses, because they take the view that Banks have a social responsibility other than just feeding at the trough (which is pretty hard to argue against, given what happened in 2008).......but have a guess which country is fighting against this EU measure?....
We'll take the bonuses, you pay the subsidies when we fail. It's quite a deal.
posted on 3/2/15
comment by Wessie Road (U10652)
posted 2 minutes ago
No, the bailout money hasn't made the shareholders rich, though others have done ok...
======================================================
I know, bonuses for being sh.it....
The EU wants to restrict bank bonuses, because they take the view that Banks have a social responsibility other than just feeding at the trough (which is pretty hard to argue against, given what happened in 2008).......but have a guess which country is fighting against this EU measure?....
We'll take the bonuses, you pay the subsidies when we fail. It's quite a deal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A terrific deal, we give them the money to shore up their finances, they take a small part to rebuild their capital base but use most of it to continue paying huge bonuses (and raising salaries whilst they are at it), and even when we own 80% of a company, as we do with RBS, we do nothing about it.
posted on 3/2/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 3/2/15
What a ridiculous idea, now those who had debts wiped can work up fresh ones.
posted on 3/2/15
What a ridiculous idea, now those who had debts wiped can work up fresh ones.
=======================================================
It’s only costing about 20m, and they estimate that it’ll help 60,000 people.
The Royal Family costs 36m a year (up by only 2m on last year, so the austerity’s really biting), and it only helps a few people, so what the Croats are doing is a lost more cost-effective.
(We spend 1m a year on the Royal gas-bill, and 400k on the Majesty’s booze).
Not that I mind helping the Royal Family out....they’re brought up to be chocolate teapots, so they can’t really help it, and people seem to like following the soap-opera of their lives, bless them, so I don’t begrudge anybody the little pleasures they get from camping on the pavement all night and watching them walk past.
It’s just that what the Croats are doing with the money is a lot more cost-effective. If you’re going to give your money away, I personally would rather it was spent on helping 60,000 people have an easier life than just one family, and it may even help to stimulate the economy.
And we could easily afford to do both, tbh.
posted on 3/2/15
"The Royal Family costs 36m a year "
Oh dear.
If only you had any idea how much money the royal family generates for this country.
posted on 4/2/15
Oh dear.
If only you had any idea how much money the royal family generates for this country.
===========================================================
I know how much they pretend to generate, most of it premised on assumptions that are impossible to prove. (and on the assumption that none of the money would be generated anyway if they didn’t exist).
The 35m is something of an under-estimate too, as it doesn't include things like security. But as I said, I’m happy for people to collude in this delusion if they enjoy it, and I don’t begrudge the money.
As Mickey Flanagan says, when a man wears a wig, he demands of the people that know him to collude in the delusion that he has a barnet, and as with the Royal Family, I don’t resent the collusion, I just find it amusing.
posted on 4/2/15
I have looked it up several times and the average estimated OVERALL cost of the royal family to the tax payer correlates with the figure provided above.
posted on 4/2/15
Having traveled all over the world IMO the royals do more than pay for themselves. They're far more revered abroad than a lot of people realise and definitely do help tourism hugely.
posted on 4/2/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 4/2/15
Wouldn't argue with a word of it Wessie.
Wouldn't dare!
Page 2 of 2