Brexit 23rd June..?

[Bullet]

For me it's plain and simple, To vote to stay in the EU will be a vote to accept TTIP and even the most conservative of experts say it will result in approximately 600,000 to 1,000,000 jobs lost and will pave the way for the NHS being sold off and replaced with an Obama care style system.

 

Leave.

[Ekona]

And you think that the US will want to do a completely different trade agreement with us?

 

They won't. We'll end up with the exact same thing.

[Juggalo]

Not at all, I just have a realistic view of the world.

 

Do you genuinely believe that all banks are evil? And that everyone working for them is evil?

 

I don't like the word Evil, it's too abstract. Driven by pure greed at any cost? yes, absolutely, 100%

Were they the prime mover that caused the global financial meltdown? Yes, absolutely, and the Governments were thoroughly complicit.

 

You need to watch Inside Job. It illustrates perfectly how these assholes were, and are, thoroughly detached from everyone else, and reality. It's just a game to them.

Edited June 3, 2016 by Juggalo

[Fodder]

Well, I've just voted for real. (Postal vote completed)

 

😳

My constituency are sending out postal votes on 14th June which means I can't actually vote for reasons I won't go into on a public forum.

[BobbyZ]

Not at all, I just have a realistic view of the world.

 

Do you genuinely believe that all banks are evil? And that everyone working for them is evil?

 

I don't like the word Evil, it's too abstract. Driven by pure greed at any cost? yes, absolutely, 100%

Were they the prime mover that caused the global financial meltdown? Yes, absolutely, and the Governments were thoroughly complicit.

 

You need to watch Inside Job. It illustrates perfectly how these assholes were, and are, thoroughly detached from everyone else, and reality. It's just a game to them.

 

People are inherently greedy. Sure there are some bankers that cross the line and are irresponsible, but you could say that about any industry (and make a sensationalist documentary about it). Banks are just easy to point the finger at when things go bad because they're such a crucial part of modern economies.

[Juggalo]

Not at all, I just have a realistic view of the world.

 

Do you genuinely believe that all banks are evil? And that everyone working for them is evil?

 

I don't like the word Evil, it's too abstract. Driven by pure greed at any cost? yes, absolutely, 100%

Were they the prime mover that caused the global financial meltdown? Yes, absolutely, and the Governments were thoroughly complicit.

 

You need to watch Inside Job. It illustrates perfectly how these assholes were, and are, thoroughly detached from everyone else, and reality. It's just a game to them.

 

People are inherently greedy. Sure there are some bankers that cross the line and are irresponsible, but you could say that about any industry (and make a sensationalist documentary about it). Banks are just easy to point the finger at when things go bad because they're such a crucial part of modern economies.

 

No, I'm sorry, I can't agree with your justification, or parallel. Greed has been demonstrably institutionalised in the Banking and Financial sectors.

You need to understand the mechanics of their greed that led to 2008 to grasp just how deep that greed went. It's truly shocking they were allowed to get away with it.

Edited June 3, 2016 by Juggalo

[Juggalo]

EU gets schooled by Farage again...

 

[Jetpilot]

I was under the impression the goverment and the bank of england were warned and did nothing.

[BobbyZ]

Not at all, I just have a realistic view of the world.

 

Do you genuinely believe that all banks are evil? And that everyone working for them is evil?

 

I don't like the word Evil, it's too abstract. Driven by pure greed at any cost? yes, absolutely, 100%

Were they the prime mover that caused the global financial meltdown? Yes, absolutely, and the Governments were thoroughly complicit.

 

You need to watch Inside Job. It illustrates perfectly how these assholes were, and are, thoroughly detached from everyone else, and reality. It's just a game to them.

 

People are inherently greedy. Sure there are some bankers that cross the line and are irresponsible, but you could say that about any industry (and make a sensationalist documentary about it). Banks are just easy to point the finger at when things go bad because they're such a crucial part of modern economies.

 

No, I'm sorry, I can't agree with your justification, or parallel. Greed has been demonstrably institutionalised in the Banking and Financial sectors.

You need to understand the mechanics of their greed that led to 2008 to grasp just how deep that greed went. It's truly shocking they were allowed to get away with it.

 

There was a failure on the part of regulators and to an extent bankers, no doubt. There was also a failure on the part of some consumers to manage their finances and not borrow beyond their means. What caused that? Part greed, part stupidity I'd say. You seem to think that banks can force people into positions where they can't afford their lifestyle, which isn't true. It's a system which can fail, but it takes both sides to get greedy and irresponsible for that to happen.

[rtbiscuit]

What does 'banks' mean, who are you referring to? Banking has multiple forms, its probably more complex than I can get to grips with.

 

In its simplest form, wasnt the recession caused by over lending to people being greedy and demanding more than they could afford...in simple terms, plenty of the public were responsible for becoming bad debtors.

 

that's an overly simplistic view and not totally true. yes the basis of the comment is true, but banks should have a moral obligation not to lend to people more than they can repay. Nationwide building society is a prime example they have always assessed their customers and if they feel any loan would put you in a position you cant afford they won't lend it to you and that incldeds mortgage. they have always been a responsible lender. others have been less morally responsible. e.g 100% LTV mortgages, offering more than the traditional 3.5 times your salary, extendning the rules on guarantors etc.

 

and with reference to our financial services the "banking" can be complex and covers vast areas. but their unregulated dabbling in what was basically gambling by buying and selling debt, investing in futures and playing high risk gains to get the largest financial returns etc. that was a major part of the crash because it was like playing hot potato and trying not to get left with the debt. when the trust went out of the market the debt went toxic and people couldn't pay it back.

[coldel]

I still remember reading a news report in 2007 entitled "sub-prime mortgages in the US and why we should be worried" no one took a bit of notice. Yes they should have responsibly advised but borrowers cannot possibly pass all the blame, that's like saying I'm a child and any mistake I make is your fault.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kieran O'Quick]

 

 

. Nationwide building society is a prime example they have always assessed their customers and if they feel any loan would put you in a position you cant afford they won't lend it to you and that incldeds mortgage. they have always been a responsible lender.

 

 

Dead right. The problem is decent companies like that can only last so long when their competitors are allowed to flout those standards. They lose so many customers to the legally sanctioned fraudsters that they have to compromise their standards or go bust.

 

In the same way that good decent people don't want to take out mortgages at 5 times their embellished wage. Just to buy a house that is twice the price it was last year and is promised will be more again next year. But they have no alternative when everybody else is allowed to do it. They are forced to compromise their standards or be condemned to the non-propertied class.

[Kieran O'Quick]

If you recklessly lend your money to say, a Junkie, do you expect the state to bale you out when she defaults? And not just for the loan amount but for the nice hefty arrangement fees that were magic-ed out of nowhere and thrown in on top of the loan?

 

One interesting point on this is that the Irish constitution has a rule that no family can be thrown out of their home (more or less). The home is inviolable - they put it in because of landlords evicting people for fun in the 1800s. The internationals weren't aware of this when they were throwing around the money - they expected easy re-possessions so had nothing to lose. They wouldn't have been so flash with the money and the property market wouldn't have bubbled if this in-violability was accepted practice for home mortgages.

 

Buy-to-let wannabees and developers run their own risk - free market for them.

[rtbiscuit]

I still remember reading a news report in 2007 entitled "sub-prime mortgages in the US and why we should be worried" no one took a bit of notice. Yes they should have responsibly advised but borrowers cannot possibly pass all the blame, that's like saying I'm a child and any mistake I make is your fault.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

But that analogy works both ways, if we're children then the banks are like parents, and like any good parent they should set the limits and boundaries appropriately because they know you're going to screw up if they let you run completely loose.

[coldel]

Not really, banks aren't our parents at all, I said some people behaved like children when they should have been behaving adult to adult. Banks are not, and never should be, our parents. To put the blame 100% at the door of banking for the recession just feels wrong, when the root cause was toxic debt, thats people borrowing beyond their means, lots of people didn't do this even when it was on offer, but enough did. At what point do people become responsible for themselves?

 

At the end of the day, advice is exactly that, advice. Its up to you, as an adult, to take it or not and bear the responsibility of it.

Edited June 3, 2016 by coldel

[Kieran O'Quick]

The banks are simple innocent people who know nothing about banking. They are people who never studied economics, law or history. They are distracted by their busy lives, specialising in other industries. They expect the regulators to protect them from scheming, professional, sophisticated mortgage borrowers who might trick them in to giving away their depositor's money.

Edited June 3, 2016 by Kieran O'Quick

[rtbiscuit]

Not really, banks aren't our parents at all, I said some people behaved like children when they should have been behaving adult to adult. Banks are not, and never should be, our parents. To put the blame 100% at the door of banking for the recession just feels wrong, when the root cause was toxic debt, thats people borrowing beyond their means, lots of people didn't do this even when it was on offer, but enough did. At what point do people become responsible for themselves?

 

At the end of the day, advice is exactly that, advice. Its up to you, as an adult, to take it or not and bear the responsibility of it.

 

banking has changed a lot, I remember my parents and grandparents talking about getting a bank loan for the farm or even just for something small; you'd wear your best suit, you'd prep your reasons etc but the loan wasn't always given even if you were a safe bet. back in the past very little risk was taken banks were far more cautious of the money on how and who they lent to. now it is far more open. far more eager to lend and give you money. they are far more profit driven then they were 30 years ago

 

yes they are not our parents but they still have to lend responsibly; the public are not blameless but the financial industry allowed and put in place the triggers. they ignored warnings and continued to gamble dangerously.

 

I think the banking sector is important and will be key to financial growth and recovery, but they need to be regulated and they need to be kept in line. to make good profits you need to take a certain amount of risk, but the risk needs to be controlled and clear boundaries set out.

 

they are at the end of the day working with our money, our savings, our wages, our pensions, yes they need to make a return on that money but they were getting far richer off our money and how they invested it then we ever did banking with them.

[BobbyZ]

As I already said, people are inherently greedy. The sensible ones temper that greed and don't go beyond their means. It's just gambling really - the clever people make money, the others lose it, the greedy and stupid lose everything . Banks, consumers and regulators all played their part in the credit crunch, and it will happen again in some form, because that's just how it goes. Just don't be one of the people that bet their whole stack on a certain outcome

[Juggalo]

Not at all, I just have a realistic view of the world.

 

Do you genuinely believe that all banks are evil? And that everyone working for them is evil?

 

I don't like the word Evil, it's too abstract. Driven by pure greed at any cost? yes, absolutely, 100%

Were they the prime mover that caused the global financial meltdown? Yes, absolutely, and the Governments were thoroughly complicit.

 

You need to watch Inside Job. It illustrates perfectly how these assholes were, and are, thoroughly detached from everyone else, and reality. It's just a game to them.

 

People are inherently greedy. Sure there are some bankers that cross the line and are irresponsible, but you could say that about any industry (and make a sensationalist documentary about it). Banks are just easy to point the finger at when things go bad because they're such a crucial part of modern economies.

 

No, I'm sorry, I can't agree with your justification, or parallel. Greed has been demonstrably institutionalised in the Banking and Financial sectors.

You need to understand the mechanics of their greed that led to 2008 to grasp just how deep that greed went. It's truly shocking they were allowed to get away with it.

 

There was a failure on the part of regulators and to an extent bankers, no doubt. There was also a failure on the part of some consumers to manage their finances and not borrow beyond their means. What caused that? Part greed, part stupidity I'd say. You seem to think that banks can force people into positions where they can't afford their lifestyle, which isn't true. It's a system which can fail, but it takes both sides to get greedy and irresponsible for that to happen.

 

No, the banks lobbied the governments intensivley to relax the underwiting approval process. They did (Canada to a far lesser extent) and this allowed the banks to go full retard; and also why Canada was less impacted

And yes, people are naive. If offered a mortgage while in a job or financial position that can't service the mortgage, they would still take it. Because they're bin men, janitors, retail assistants...usually uneducated. The banks didn't care, they just wanted the debt so that they could pack it into a derivative and sell it for hard cash, and let someone else take the risk.

And those that were handling their mortgage got shafted anyway once the whole house of cards came crashing down.

 

And if you think banks can't encourage people to live beyond their means then..wow.

[BobbyZ]

Of course banks can encourage people to live beyond their means - I never said otherwise. All businesses encourage people to spend though. If anything, the banks are obliged to warn people of the risks more than other industries - you don't see Apple telling people that financial liquidity is more important than having the latest iPhone do you? As coldel said, we're not talking about kids here. If you borrow more than you can pay back, don't blame whoever lent it to you.

[valy]

just came across this

Edited June 4, 2016 by valy

[Adrian@TORQEN]

[Jewell]

Ban

Not really, banks aren't our parents at all, I said some people behaved like children when they should have been behaving adult to adult. Banks are not, and never should be, our parents. To put the blame 100% at the door of banking for the recession just feels wrong, when the root cause was toxic debt, thats people borrowing beyond their means, lots of people didn't do this even when it was on offer, but enough did. At what point do people become responsible for themselves?

 

At the end of the day, advice is exactly that, advice. Its up to you, as an adult, to take it or not and bear the responsibility of it.

 

banking has changed a lot, I remember my parents and grandparents talking about getting a bank loan for the farm or even just for something small; you'd wear your best suit, you'd prep your reasons etc but the loan wasn't always given even if you were a safe bet. back in the past very little risk was taken banks were far more cautious of the money on how and who they lent to. now it is far more open. far more eager to lend and give you money. they are far more profit driven then they were 30 years ago

 

yes they are not our parents but they still have to lend responsibly; the public are not blameless but the financial industry allowed and put in place the triggers. they ignored warnings and continued to gamble dangerously.

 

I think the banking sector is important and will be key to financial growth and recovery, but they need to be regulated and they need to be kept in line. to make good profits you need to take a certain amount of risk, but the risk needs to be controlled and clear boundaries set out.

 

they are at the end of the day working with our money, our savings, our wages, our pensions, yes they need to make a return on that money but they were getting far richer off our money and how they invested it then we ever did banking with them.

 

I agree with what you are saying but Banks are stupid just as much as of the lenders who can't borrow responsibly.

 

Banks shouldn't loan against people who have bad credit ratings, they shouldn't lend at all, let a lone lend out money at a higher APR?

 

Do you know how backwards that is? "You're a risk to borrow money so instead of saying no, we will give you half of the amount you want and charge quadruple the interest".......

 

Banks, also shouldn't tell you to bet your money on a bad investment. They shouldn't tell you to put money against an investment that they know for a FACT will go bad but they still did.

 

Banks, who spend millions a year on "market compliance research" aka hookers and concierge services getting a @*!# load of top quality cocaine. Who are the biggest users of top quality drugs? Ah yes, bankers/high fliers.

 

I find it hard to believe that bankers actually thought that they could make money out of nothing.

 

The banks were not audited AT ALL and the reserves and Financial Conduct Authority warned people but were cut funding and told to keep quiet.

 

Greed, greed, greed. Who thought it would be a good idea to let bankers control the level of money they could bet against in the market? That's investors money and interest from our account

 

How anyone can justify £10 million in 12 months pay cheque is beyond me.

 

We live in a messed up world. The illegal human slave market is bigger than ever, drugs are more popular than ever and Teorrism/groups are more active than ever. I'm moving in to a bunker in the Amazon.

[Ekona]

£10M salary is nothing if you made your company £10Bn.

[Adrian@TORQEN]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2016/jun/03/brexit-how-can-the-same-statistics-be-read-so-differently