|
|
Post by striker16 on Nov 20, 2011 18:57:51 GMT 1
But the taxpayer had to bail them out! How is that being productive? The bankers got into trouble because they were forced to lend money to people who couldn't pay it back. Look up Clinton's banking bill and Brown's FSA and their "deregulation" of the banks. Of course it wasn't deregulation at all - it was replacing good regulations with bad. All part of the plan. Yes but it's more insidious than that. Brown had a 'light touch', in his words, but why? The reason was that Brown did not want to be seen by the predominantly Tory media to be regulating the banks and stock exchange too much else he would have had to face accusations of being too 'socialist', even Marxist. It's difficult when you are the leader of a socialist party in this country because you constantly have to deal with a right wing media who will pounce on anything that they can to discredit you and your Party. |
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Nov 22, 2011 17:10:05 GMT 1
Would that be the right wing BBC???
Utter tosh. If you had read my post you will see that it was not deregulation that caused the crisis, it was bad regulation from Brown's FSA which he set up - taking regulation of the banks out of the hands of the Bank of England - and giving it to his ex-flat mate in charge of the FSA.
Clinton's banking bill contained serious flaws which the republicans desperately - alas unsuccessfuly - tried to ammend. The big flaw was where banks were forced to lend money to people who could not prove they could, or even attempt to, pay it back.
|
|
|
|
Post by striker16 on Nov 22, 2011 17:18:51 GMT 1
Would that be the right wing BBC??? Utter tosh. If you had read my post you will see that it was not deregulation that caused the crisis, it was bad regulation from Brown's FSA which he set up - taking regulation of the banks out of the hands of the Bank of England - and giving it to his ex-flat mate in charge of the FSA. Clinton's banking bill contained serious flaws which the republicans desperately - alas unsuccessfuly - tried to ammend. The big flaw was where banks were forced to lend money to people who could not prove they could, or even attempt to, pay it back. What's all this got to do with driverless trains? |
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Nov 22, 2011 19:17:52 GMT 1
Can't you follow the argument then?
|
|
|
|
Post by striker16 on Nov 23, 2011 17:49:49 GMT 1
Can't you follow the argument then? If this MB was properly moderated you would have already been warned about going way off-topic. Unfortunately, the anti-AGW agenda seems to be the all consuming passion of the the admin. of this board.... I don't mind discussing climate change but within the appropriate thread otherwise all other threads are liable to become infected by it and other discussions are sacrificed. |
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Nov 23, 2011 17:57:27 GMT 1
Can't you follow the argument then? If this MB was properly moderated you would have already been warned about going way off-topic. Unfortunately, the anti-AGW agenda seems to be the all consuming passion of the the admin. of this board.... I don't mind discussing climate change but within the appropriate thread otherwise all other threads are liable to become infected by it and other discussions are sacrificed. Your alter-ego said this: "BTW, what is the difference between underground drivers seeking as much remuneration as they can get and bankers, who do the same thing? What's good for the goose is good for the gander! " I responded then you joined in seamlessly. Discussions are fluid beasts striker/adam - only over moderated forums don't allow this...usually when the subject matter disagrees with the mods ideology. It happens occasionally on this board and I disagree with the practice regardless of ideological stance. |
|
