"we are not a charity" say bailed out banks

"we are not a charity" say bailed out banks (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

LadyEllen -> "we are not a charity" say bailed out banks (11/7/2008 3:29:48 PM)
In an amazing demonstration of arrogance on a par with the award of huge bonus payments following their bail out by the taxpayer, UK banks apparently are of the opinion that despite receiving billions of pounds in rescue packages, they "are not charities". The comment was made by a bank insider to UK's Channel 4 news today after the Chancellor and Prime Minister insisted that they passed on the record interest rate cut announced by the Bank Of England earlier this week to customers, the aim being to boost consumer spending on fears that the economy might well undershoot the inflation target and deflation affect the UK in late 2009 and early 2010. The UK is currently experiencing inflation over the government target. Initial reaction to the cut indicated that most banks would not pass on the reduction in terms of mortgage rates and other borrowing but after an early morning meeting today the banks gave in to government demands but made it clear that they would not pass on any future rate cuts. The Oxford English Dictionary definition of charity may well have to be rewritten; whereas in the past it was the wealthy giving money to the poor, it would seem now that it charity is the taking of money from the poor to give to the wealthy if and when their wealth is diminished. E

UncleNasty -> RE: "we are not a charity" say bailed out banks (11/7/2008 4:55:18 PM)
You'll get no argument from me on this. You seem have hit the nail on the head. Uncle Nasty

DarkSteven -> RE: "we are not a charity" say bailed out banks (11/7/2008 5:05:58 PM)
They weren't charities before the bailout, and they're not now. Let the buggers fail if they cannot run their business properly. Others will take their place. Expecting them to change to kindly uncles because they got free money is unrealistic.

susie -> RE: "we are not a charity" say bailed out banks (11/7/2008 6:24:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven They weren't charities before the bailout, and they're not now. Let the buggers fail if they cannot run their business properly. Others will take their place. Expecting them to change to kindly uncles because they got free money is unrealistic. I agree. What other businesses are being given help? We have to run our business properly or we lose everything. Why should a failing business that really should have been run better get funding from the rest of us. We have a "huge" overdraft of £5k which as a reasonably new start up business is not that bad. However last week we received a letter fron the bank to say that the overdraft term was finished and they would not renew the agreement. We now have to pay back the £5K by the end of the month. So nice of the banks to help out small businesses by suddenly withdrawing facilities like this.

Aneirin -> RE: "we are not a charity" say bailed out banks (11/7/2008 6:44:44 PM)
One thing I know about banks, is that they will give you an umbrella when it's sunny, but take it away again when it rains. Personally, the banks that were in the shit through greed or mismanagement should take the route of any other business, fail, then go under. If they go under, some will lose, but others will gain, perhaps not the right way of things, but it will serve to make people notice that banks in reality are out for themselves, not a charity and not even a decent business. To me, the bail out with public money will serve no purpose but to prolong the inevitable, they will come begging for more before long, for they will not learn by being given hand outs. Very much the same mentality as rewarding bad behaviour.

pahunkboy -> RE: "we are not a charity" say bailed out banks (11/7/2008 10:32:46 PM)
...the stock the US taxpayer now owns in bank? is non-voting shares of stock. by virtue of shared ownership, how is this part owner? it isnt. The Asian markets will collapse on November 16th- followed by US markets on November 17th 2008.

MasterZen22 -> RE: "we are not a charity" say bailed out banks (11/7/2008 10:42:31 PM)
I say it's ok to bail out the banks in order to save the jobs of their employees. I do not see why every single employee at a bank needs to suffer because of a few incompentent executives. Furthermore I am told if we let the banks fail it could take our whole economy down with it. So my solution is simple: I approve spending my hard-earned tax dollars to save the banking industry and in return.... I expect the executives of the companies to be tarred and feathered in the streets. Seems fair to me.

stella41b -> RE: "we are not a charity" say bailed out banks (11/8/2008 3:13:46 AM)
That's a good line that. I must remember to include it in my letters to my branch manager about bank charges. "What do you think I am? A charity?"

meatcleaver -> RE: "we are not a charity" say bailed out banks (11/8/2008 3:14:24 AM)
Welcome to capitalism. If you are poor, you deserve to be poor! I can't figure out why people complain about it, they choose for it at every election.

NorthernGent -> RE: "we are not a charity" say bailed out banks (11/8/2008 3:21:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Welcome to capitalism. If you are poor, you deserve to be poor! I can't figure out why people complain about it, they choose for it at every election. Nonsense, Meat. As human beings, we aim to achieve, and we invest to achieve a return; whether that be labour, money or time. Corporate welfare is a departure from Capitalism, as we're not investing to earn a return: we're shoring up someone else's losses.

meatcleaver -> RE: "we are not a charity" say bailed out banks (11/8/2008 3:26:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Welcome to capitalism. If you are poor, you deserve to be poor! I can't figure out why people complain about it, they choose for it at every election. Nonsense, Meat. As human beings, we aim to achieve, and we invest to achieve a return; whether that be labour, money or time. Corporate welfare is a departure from Capitalism, as we're not investing to earn a return: we're shoring up someone else's losses. Its not a departure, its cyclical and was recognized as such by two Dutch economists as early as 1913 and then given wider publicity by a Soviet economist in the 20s.

meatcleaver -> RE: "we are not a charity" say bailed out banks (11/8/2008 3:32:06 AM)
NG As human beings, we aim to achieve, and we invest to achieve a return; whether that be labour, money or time. This statement is also not true. The idea incorporated in your statement above is a capitalist idea and not intrinsic to humans.

NorthernGent -> RE: "we are not a charity" say bailed out banks (11/8/2008 3:44:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver NG As human beings, we aim to achieve, and we invest to achieve a return; whether that be labour, money or time. This statement is also not true. The idea incorporated in your statement above is a capitalist idea and not intrinsic to humans. 'You don't want some sort of reward for your efforts, Meat?

LadyEllen -> RE: "we are not a charity" say bailed out banks (11/8/2008 3:54:07 AM)
Sorry MC, but I think NG may be right on that one - even at subsistence level one spends days on planting and watering and weeding in order to get a harvest. And being acquisitive animals who live in social hierarchies, we're all looking to get ahead through whatever means we can find simply in order to be able to secure a better mate and produce more offspring and have them survive at the most basic level. The problem we have had in the past with the cycle you mention is that money having long since departed from any measurement according to actual wealth - money being a representation of the value of goods and services at its most basic - it has taken on a life of its own through capitalism which tends to reinforce social position in the hierarchy and hinder the normal inter-generational changes in social hierarchy one might find in more natural conditions. The problem we have now is that the condition of money as having a life of its own under capitalism has been taken a stage further - it has been allowed to conjure more money out of itself which is purely notional on this occasion rather than being related to itself even if weakly. This isnt a problem if its just a bunch of fanciful imagining, but it is a problem here and now because this notional money has been put in as the underpinning of the pyramid rather than the pinnacle of the pyramid. Once the notional nature of the foundations was discovered the whole pyramid came crashing down. We need to bail out the banks because of this - otherwise we all fall into the empty foundations. But it is now the social duty of the banks to play their part in helping the rebuild, and to rebuild on solid foundations which whilst they clearly dont like it - it being a long term return game rather than a swift return game like they preferred, there is no point in doing otherwise if we wish to avoid a repeat of this particular type of collapse in the near future. E

meatcleaver -> RE: "we are not a charity" say bailed out banks (11/8/2008 4:24:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Sorry MC, but I think NG may be right on that one - even at subsistence level one spends days on planting and watering and weeding in order to get a harvest. And being acquisitive animals who live in social hierarchies, we're all looking to get ahead through whatever means we can find simply in order to be able to secure a better mate and produce more offspring and have them survive at the most basic level. This is not true. People do live in social groups which aren't necessarily hierarchies, anthropolgists have recorded this long ago. Once a group takes on the idea of ownership, that is when hierarchies form because the group breaks up into the haves and have nots and the have nots become dependent of the haves. This is an over simplification but where you have ownership, ie in capitalist and feudal societies, that is where you find the strictist orders of hierarchy. I know someone will comment that capitalism allows social mobility but many studies have shown that social mobility in capitalism is probably no more than social mobility in feudal societies. A poor person in a capitalist society will more than likely die poor. Where the difference lies, is that in the last hundred years, many people have got more affluent and perceived they were socially upwardly mobile when really, it was just the strata of society they are in, was getting more affluent.

LadyEllen -> RE: "we are not a charity" say bailed out banks (11/8/2008 4:39:02 AM)
Agreed on all your points except the first - social hierarchy, whether its expressed in terms of "I'm bigger than you" or "I have a special position" (granted by someone bigger than you) or "I have lots of money" (usually because I am bigger than you or my ancestors were bigger than yours), is pretty much universal; there may be some place some tribe that doesnt think that way but I would argue it is they who are not following natural human behaviour rather than that we and the rest of the world are displaying such variance. E

pahunkboy -> RE: "we are not a charity" say bailed out banks (11/8/2008 4:45:35 AM)
I really ought to try to contain my optimism. :-) lol

MmeGigs -> RE: "we are not a charity" say bailed out banks (11/8/2008 5:16:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterZen22 I say it's ok to bail out the banks in order to save the jobs of their employees. I do not see why every single employee at a bank needs to suffer because of a few incompentent executives. What about all of the people who were employed by other businesses who have lost their jobs because of these incompetent executives? What do you think should be done for them?

pahunkboy -> RE: "we are not a charity" say bailed out banks (11/8/2008 6:45:49 AM)
there is ALWAYS work to be done. what we have is the almighty investment bank casino globalists, cant seem to have the system to function. the very system that THEY created now wont function. so- cut out the middleman. why do you think alternative currency groups are raided? it is a threat to da man. so the peon may not fit into their matrix, but the peon could still trade toil with other peons, right? and for anyone who cant make that happen- the job of making it happen is available work. WHEN this conference next week fails- the markets will go nuts. It will fail. Grab some silver. Oil is going to $500 a barrel. Or more to the point- the dollar will sink so as it takes 500 to buy a barrel. we doubled all money in the past 6 weeks. what would happen of people traded house for house- car for car, EN MASS? the middleman in its current forms would be deleted.

Lordandmaster -> RE: "we are not a charity" say bailed out banks (11/8/2008 7:51:41 AM)
Robert Reich has said that the economic system in the United States is socialism for the rich and capitalism for everyone else. But as meat has said, it's what people have emphatically voted for, so there's a limit to how much complaining we're entitled to do. MAYBE now people have changed their minds, but I'm not persuaded yet. I think people are just pissed off that they're poor--for reasons they don't even fully understand. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen The Oxford English Dictionary definition of charity may well have to be rewritten; whereas in the past it was the wealthy giving money to the poor, it would seem now that it charity is the taking of money from the poor to give to the wealthy if and when their wealth is diminished.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875