Banking problems

[herakles]

We have seen various Govts. spending - or attempting to spend - vast amounts of money to prop up ailing banks. What do you think about this?

[designeraccd]

Here in the US, probably due to pelosi shooting off her totally PARTISAN mouth before the House vote: the answer was NO! So much for working TOGETHER for the common good of the American people. DFO :mad:

[astraltrader]

I see you forgot to vote yourself.:rolleyes:

[John Odom]

This is a simple question for a complex question. The answer is maybe. Government should act to keep business moving. It should prosecute the mortgage brokers and apraisers and othere who pocketed huge fees for arranging deals they knew were fraudulent. No government bailout for the execs and stockholders of the banks and insurance companies.

[designeraccd]

Didn't forget to vote....chose not to. IMhO the correct "bailout" plan isn't there yet; maybe on try #3??? DFO :confused:

[astraltrader]

Sorry DFO - I was not referring to you but to Herakles. It is the first poll I had seen where the person asking for people to vote didn`t get round to doing so himself!
Anyway I must have jogged his memory as he has now rectified the lack of a vote.
Personally I chose not to vote either!

[Melv.]

Well, I voted! :D
This financial crisis has been going to happen for at least 3 years now and some people read the signs and got out of banking stocks especially retail banks.....namely me! :D

[nigelweysom]

the question is should ailing banks be propped up, my vote was no ,if the question was should depositors money be protected my answer would be yes ,
not an easy subject to ask one question on an do it justice
Nigel

[herakles]

I think that the antagonism directed against banks is most likely to be the excessive charges they levy at us yet they make obscene profits.

To me, a bear of little brain, it seems that banks cannot now borrow money to use in their mortgage business. I read yesterday that providing mortgages in the UK has dropped 98% from this time last year.

Australia too has poured money into this problem. What riles me is that at the same time, the Opposition had a Bill rejected that would raise old aged pension a little. With typical panache, the Labour Govt. PM said that he couldn't imagine how pensioners survive on the existing pension. Then the Bill was rejected and the Govt. found billions to prop up the banks.

I can't help but reflect that the huge amount of money the Americans want to spend on the banks could be so well used in other areas like feeding the world's poor.

And I am confused as to why so few members have voted above.

[DJBlackburn]

My sig pic says it all....

[astraltrader]

I cant speak for everybody else but the reason I have not voted is firstly the three options in the poll seem to me to make the whole subject too simplistic and secondly one of the reasons I use this forum is to get away from all of this for a few hours each day...

[Harley]

To my mind Herk one can't condense our options or our opinions into three tick boxes. I am utterly atrocious with money, but these are my thoughts;

"Yes, with as much money as is necessary": The problem with that is who deems it necessary, which is I understand one reason among others that the U.S. House of Representatives got peeved. They didn't want Henry Paulson effectively becoming the economic executive. And when will the money stop flowing, God forbid?

"Yes, but with a limit placed on the amount": No man left behind mentality kicks in. Either you're all in or you're all-out. You also end up with the question of who decides the limit and is it going to be fair?

"No" I will admit to clicking on that as I felt that the other options didn't cover my feelings.

I believe that savings should be protected as a given - and they are in Britain at least up to 35,000 pounds. The limit should go higher I think to make sure the average Joe is thoroughly protected. Of course, you end up with some sort of arbitrary figure which means you're either safe or you're not, but I'd much rather the vast majority of people's money was safe than those with enormous bankbooks.

Personally I reckon the markets should be allowed to have a feeding frenzy - consolidate its ill-gotten gains and move on.

I know zilch about markets though, financial trends and the like. However I really don't like the thought of a large blank cheque being waved in front of a wounded financial bull. Rambling over!

Simon

[herakles]

An excellent summation Simon.

I too profess ignorance over these matters. I was caught trying to offer sufficient alternatives with this poll. In the end I opted for simplicity.

It is vital that one's savings be protected. Have you read what the Irish Govt. have just paid to ensure that?

Whatever else, there is now a massive world problem the future of which is most uncertain.

I'm wondering why someone hasn't said it's all an Al Q'aeda plot!

[Joseph]

Mmmm, pays your money takes your chance, what does that say for the average person? well who do you trust and why.

They will make my money grow, I feel safe with my money there, protect my future please.

Its fine saying we will look after your savings, thats super at the poor rates that are on offer by the banks.

The shares that was iinvested n the banks are worth nothing that is lost,

It will blow over, the average man will not loose too much.

Will the rich that backed the money system loose out, No.. do they need jailing?

Well who do you trust and why!!!

Gold thats what.............. dont put you money in a bank that you can not trust.

The stock markets will rise because the dealers will make money. all the rhetoric suggests one thing we will loose the dealers gain.

Regards charles

[herakles]

Bank interest rates? Ha! I was paid half of one percent by Barclays. Compare that to the interest rates they charge!

Shylock is alive and well.

The average man will suffer, especially those who rely on this system for their pensions. What we call Superannuation in Australia. They are the losers.

I just might make some comments on the way the price of crude oil is manipulated next! :rolleyes:

This is being reported in the British press today:

Savers will be guaranteed that at least £50,000 of their money will be repaid if their bank collapses, under plans to be unveiled by the Government.

This is a change from the £35,000 already guaranteed.

[Melv.]

Bank interest rates? Ha! I was paid half of one percent by Barclays. Compare that to the interest rates they charge!

Shylock is alive and well.

The average man will suffer, especially those who rely on this system for their pensions. What we call Superannuation in Australia. They are the losers.

I just might make some comments on the way the price of crude oil is manipulated next! :rolleyes:

This is being reported in the British press today:

Savers will be guaranteed that at least £50,000 of their money will be repaid if their bank collapses, under plans to be unveiled by the Government.

This is a change from the £35,000 already guaranteed.




Nothing new. That statement was announced last year after the collapse of NR but the Chancellor was kicking his heels over implementing it.....now he has been forced to do something about it.

[herakles]

Here's two thoughts on the current crisis - courtesy of Newsnight:

If you had purchased £1000 of Northern Rock shares one year ago they would now be worth £4.95; with HBOS, earlier this week your £1000 would have been worth £16.50; £1000 invested in XL Leisure would now be worth less than £5; but if you bought £1000 worth of Tennents Lager one year ago, drank it all, then took the empty cans to an aluminium re-cycling plant, you would get £214. So based on the above statistics the best current investment advice is to drink heavily and re-cycle.

"What is the difference between a pigeon and a merchant banker?"
"A pigeon can still put a deposit on a Ferrari."

[designeraccd]

At least it's soooo reassuring to know that our Congress is looking out for us lil people: the bailout bill swelled from 3 pages to 451 that the Senate voted on last night. Why do I have such doubts???? Oh me of NO faith......but ohbaaahhMEE izz gunna save us all.....right. DFO :rolleyes:

[Donald Maciver]

Whatever the ins and outs of how the present crisis came about, allowing banks to go to the wall would not serve any useful purpose. It would, in fact, hurt those less able to fend for themselves.

Not many of us were around at the time of the Wall St Crash or the following Great Depression but most of us will be aware of the effect on the individual and on the world.

Unemployment, starvation, war, death. Surely any amount of juggling with any amount of money is preferable to a repeat of that scenario.

Perhaps when the situation returns to some sort of normality an enquiry should establish the causes, and appropriate action taken to avoid a recurrence.

Perhaps also those who put the welfare of the economy at large, the savings and livelihoods of millions of hard working individuals at risk should be made to regret their self centred greed and pay for it with their ill-gotten gains.

Just a few observations, who is listening to Joe average anyway, they will do what suits them, they always do.

Regards,
Donald.

[herakles]

Whilst I agree with you that collapsing banks is a terrible thought, I am not at all certain that anything can or will be done to redress the conditions that caused this problem.

To do that would bring into question the entire basis of Capitalism that Western countries are hell-bent on following.

That the banking system is out of control can be taken as read.

[herakles]

Now, if possible, it's become worse.

Individual countries falling over themselves to announce that private deposits are guaranteed. The Germans refusing to bail out a failing German bank but adding that the culprits will be punished.

Then the heavies of Europe met and couldn't agree what to do. When will the European countries learn to be co-operative? Someone today described the situation re the countries of Europe as akin to putting several cats in one sack.

And the Australian banks have announced that they are so poor that they aren't going to pass on all the interest rate cut due today or tomorrow. And the Labour Govt. has defended this greedy action. Though the Opposition have jumped on that. Australian pensioners are now looking for work as their retirement nest egg is withering away.

[Topmaul]

I do not wish to be a Socialist! Or a Communist! :eek:

[designeraccd]

Aaahhh, but IF ohbaahhMEE gets "elected" (with ACORN'S help...), life will be good...COMRADE! And u will NOT critisize what HE knows izz best for all........DFO :rolleyes:

[DJBlackburn]

Aaahhh, but IF ohbaahhMEE gets "elected" (with ACORN'S help...), life will be good...COMRADE! And u will NOT critisize what HE knows izz best for all........DFO :rolleyes:

The way things are heading, it will soon be considered an assault to extend your hand to shake another's!

[Harley]

It will be interesting to see if ACORN's supposed half million young people does turn out to vote (not including the other half million they made up). Just because the lazy soes-and-soes are registered to vote doesn't mean that they actually will on General Election day.

And here in Britain it would seem we are witnessing the pound collapsing. As someone who has to go to the United States fairly regularly, I am not happy!!

Simon

[astraltrader]

Sadly I still think that the Democrats will win - although it will be a lot closer than the polls have led us to believe.


McCain is perceived, in some ways unfairly, as being far too close to Bush.

[herakles]

Don't be too hasty Terry. It's not over until the Fat Lady sings.

I've been watching a series about both men. I've come to the conclusion that they are both extremely competent. Like everywhere else, it's not the man at the top so much as the party he leads that's the problem.

Back to the thrust of the thread ... ... I've gleaned information that has not been generally made public. It is this. The banks have an amazing exposure to the fate of other countries. There's been an example of this with Iceland. But it is far bigger. It seems that Hungary is the next to go and European banks it seems virtually own the place. British banks have huge investments in Far East countries. British pension money invested in Vietnamese bonds etc.

I gather the figures involved exceed $260 billion, an amount that no government could guarantee.

If all that's not enough to chill the blood, there is another matter - the huge exposure banks have with inter bank insurance. It seems they insure each other for bad debt. That's gone turtle because they now can't bail their mates out.

Lay in stocks of basic commodities.