NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7927415.stm

yep, we will have a 50%+ share in another bank, what do you think?

not my business what the UK does with their banks.

Not for it, but not my nation, so you guys can do as you wish. Just remember the words of Thomas Jefferson:

"Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies."

Is Lloyds financial group the same as the famed "Lloyds of London" insurance group?

lol, i guess you dont care if you dont live here, i think its ok, but we should be doing more to regulate the banks we own, we should get them to lend more as well imo, otherwise theres not much point in owning them

since our respective peoples own our banks, we should start trading banks back and forth, we could make a killing! lol...

lol, i guess you dont care if you dont live here, i think its ok, but we should be doing more to regulate the banks we own, we should get them to lend more as well imo, otherwise theres not much point in owning them
isnt the point of owning them being able to keep them running until they can become profitable again and buy themselves back from the government and y'all get your gigantic investment back?

isnt the point of owning them being able to keep them running until they can become profitable again and buy themselves back from the government and y'all get your gigantic investment back?

whilst we should be aiming for profitability long term, i think we should take advantage of our ownership by imposing regulations and lending to bussiness and taxpayers again, afterall the banks are there for our benefit not vice-versa

whilst we should be aiming for profitability long term, i think we should take advantage of our ownership by imposing regulations and lending to bussiness and taxpayers again, afterall the banks are there for our benefit not vice-versa
is that not in the offing? i dont know if y'all have been allowing your banks to do the stupid things that we have been letting our banks do, but im pretty sure that new banking regulations are not far down the road for us.

is that not in the offing? i dont know if y'all have been allowing your banks to do the stupid things that we have been letting our banks do, but im pretty sure that new banking regulations are not far down the road for us.

we failed to regulate them just like the US, but so far the government here has only done a very small amount of what im talking about, which is better than what the tories want to do (bugger all) but they should do more imo

the banks are there for our benefit not vice-versa

They must work differently in the UK, across the Atlantic, the Banks are there for the Banks' benefit...

They must work differently in the UK, across the Atlantic, the Banks are there for the Banks' benefit...

thats the problem, the banks started getting greedy and cheating taxes and stuff, now we have the chance to move them to a better system where they cant do thoose things

Meh if we're making a profit it's all good.

thats the problem, the banks started getting greedy and cheating taxes and stuff, now we have the chance to move them to a better system where they cant do thoose things
Don't be a retarded communist, banks feed off greed and rightly so.

Don't be a retarded communist, banks feed off greed and rightly so.

Epic Fail

Don't be a retarded communist, banks feed off greed and rightly so.

But these guys are AWESOME!!!

http://www.zefrank.com/theshow/gallery/d/4901-2/Commies_.gif

Epic Fail
Not even remotely in the boom years.

Not even remotely in the boom years.

and how is it working out for you now?

Not even remotely in the boom years.

and how is it working out for you now?

*looks at respective locations*

The same as it is for you I would imagine? lol

*looks at respective locations*

The same as it is for you I would imagine? lol

it was a rhetorical question, forgive me for thinking that was obvious

Is Lloyds financial group the same as the famed "Lloyds of London" insurance group?

Asking the same question again, because I'm curious.

Asking the same question again, because I'm curious.

nope

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyds_Bank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd%27s_of_London

nope

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyds_Bank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd%27s_of_London

why so many things named after Lloyd ??? cant you brits think of any more interesting names?

nope

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyds_Bank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd%27s_of_London

Ah, thanks. *throws a pie, vanishes*

it was a rhetorical question, forgive me for thinking that was obvious

Youre forgiven, lol...But, assuming the two of you disagreed I didnt make the connection...

Ah, thanks. *throws a pie, vanishes*

*Gets hit by pie*

WTF! I wasn't even one of the main contributors to the discussion!

*Gets hit by pie*

WTF! I wasn't even one of the main contributors to the discussion!

YOUR LACK OF FAITH...disturbs him...lol

we should get them to lend more as well imo
Wait, so they're in trouble because they were lending too much and to pretty much anyone, and your solution is to make laws that make them lend too much and to pretty much anyone?

"My grandpa taught me how to live off the land, and his taught him to be a business man. He use to send me pictures of the Broadway nights and I'd send him some homemade wine."

Wait, so they're in trouble because they were lending too much and to pretty much anyone, and your solution is to make laws that make them lend too much and to pretty much anyone?
Any problem caused by debt can be solved by debt. Or so my mates with credit cards tell me.

yep, we will have a 50%+ share in another bank, what do you think?

Clearly in Britain there are no proletarians. They're all kapita£i$tik bank€r$!:tongue:

Clearly in Britain there are no proletarians. They're all kapita£i$tik bank€r$!:tongue:

well if the workers control the government. and the government controls the banks. perhaps the UK is what happens after the communist revolution happens.

well if the workers control the government. and the government controls the banks. perhaps the UK is what happens after the communist revolution happens.

Only if they get the water for tea from a samovar with the sickle and hammer on it.

Really, it's funny to see how much statalist the "homeland of liberism" can get. And it's not the first time, too. I'm beginning to think that free-marketers and capitalists are able to make things work... only when everything goes fine of its own accord; as soon as things get though, they run away screaming for mommy State, the filthy hypocrites.

Only if they get the water for tea from a samovar with the sickle and hammer on it.

Really, it's funny to see how much statalist the "homeland of liberism" can get. And it's not the first time, too. I'm beginning to think that free-marketers and capitalists are able to make things work... only when everything goes fine of its own accord; as soon as things get though, they run away screaming for mommy State, the filthy hypocrites.

the problem with free market and capitalism is you have to have these downs. I think these bail outs just make things worse in the long run, but then again I am not about to retire and i would be mighty pissed if said funds vanished just before retirement.

the problem with free market and capitalism is you have to have these downs. I think these bail outs just make things worse in the long run, but then again I am not about to retire and i would be mighty pissed if said funds vanished just before retirement.

Yay, I too wouldn't like my retirement money disappear with the bank - though we Italians have to rely for our pensions mostly on the INPS - statal institute for pensions, that is.

Anyway, the question is: does the government get also the decisional power over the bank? If the decisions are taken out of the hands of the incompetent bankers who led them into near bankruptcy, well, I support that.

Yay, I too wouldn't like my retirement money disappear with the bank - though we Italians have to rely for our pensions mostly on the INPS - statal institute for pensions, that is.

Anyway, the question is: does the government get also the decisional power over the bank? If the decisions are taken out of the hands of the incompetent bankers who led them into near bankruptcy, well, I support that.

yes and put in the hands of incompetent politicians who had their fair share of leading the banks to collapse.

yes and put in the hands of incompetent politicians who had their fair share of leading the banks to collapse.

Did they out of their own ideas... or did they because they were lobbied by bankers to do so, with the alternative of being ridiculed as "oldthinker socialcommunist opposer of free market and babyeater"?

The thing is that in the last 20 years there has been a general consensus for ultraliberism (including deregulation), which has led to excessive immateriality of finance, and to the current crisis.

Did they out of their own ideas... or did they because they were lobbied by bankers to do so, with the alternative of being ridiculed as "oldthinker socialcommunist opposer of free market and babyeater"?

The thing is that in the last 20 years there has been a general consensus for ultraliberism (including deregulation), which has led to excessive immateriality of finance, and to the current crisis.

don't know about the UK the bankers had pushed for a higher fed reserve rate for awhile in the states.
my favorite is after the bailout in the US some government official mentioned banks need to save more and loan more.

the banks aren't free of guilt, but poor fiscal policy also has its fair share in the matter.

The thing is that in the last 20 years there has been a general consensus for ultraliberism (including deregulation), which has led to excessive immateriality of finance, and to the current crisis.

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was not deregulation.
several other over reactions in the wake of enron whose names elude me at the moment. One of which had a hand in making the current situation worse as it didn't let banks declare a foreclosed on house at projected rebound value.
Prior to a bank when a group of homes were foreclosed could hold on to the homes for 6 months to a year (the limiter is avoiding property tax normally)to wait for the prices to rebound and declare for the purpose of assets the projected rebound value, if a group of homes defaulted (normally during recessions)

Wait, so they're in trouble because they were lending too much and to pretty much anyone, and your solution is to make laws that make them lend too much and to pretty much anyone?

nope, thats not what i mean, what i mean is we should get them to lend sensibly (hence the regulations) but they should be lending to people and bussiness who can afford to pay them back, which many can, the problem is, is that at the moment the banks wont lend to anyone, even if they can pay them back, so we should also make the tax system better so people on lower incomes can better afford rent/mortgages for there homes, raising taxes for the rich would also help offset the cost of maintaining current spending levels in public services, yes idealy the money in the public sector would be better spent than it is now, but if the money goes down then you dont have much leeway with how to spend it. essentialy we need a more socialist economic system in the UK bundled with progressive taxation and public services, that way everyone wins

nope, thats not what i mean, what i mean is we should get them to lend sensibly (hence the regulations) but they should be lending to people and bussiness who can afford to pay them back, which many can...
And how do we know that they can? Britain is absolutely and completely screwed. It will be going through a long, long recession, the worst one since the 1930s by far. The pound has nowhere to go but down. Would you really back yourself to be able to tell which individual or company will have a stable cashflow going forward?

And what happens to the bad loans the banks already ran up? They have to be dealt with, in other words the banks have to save to get their balance sheets back in line. How are they supposed to save when you ask them to lend more? For each dollar they lend someone else, they need to come up with a fraction of that in actual shareholder capital - real money, the hardest thing for a bank to find right now. And if you're talking about more regulations, then that fraction should increase rather than decrease.

essentialy we need a more socialist economic system in the UK bundled with progressive taxation and public services, that way everyone wins
That's a non sequitur. You have a banking crisis, hence you need more socialism? I don't see the logic at all.

First of all you need to tell me concretely what you think should be done with the banks. More regulation? Fine, but what kind of regulation and what do you hope to achieve with it? If you want the banks to start going out and lending again, how do you propose they finance that? If you want them to improve their standards, how do you propose they keep quality staff if you're going to set wage limits (if you are, that is) and raise taxes on the wealthy? And how do you propose the banks get their balance sheets back in order when the disparity between the pound and the US dollar is growing and growing? The BoE can try and prevent deflation by printing pounds like mad, but that has side effects as well...