|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Mar 4, 2011 11:51:13 GMT 1
Why should I?
The bankers were just doing their job within the regulatory framework set up by Clinton in the US and Brown, here.
All the dodgy deals and mad dealings were checked, signed off and approved by the Financial Standards Agency.
The FSA was set up by Brown and staffed with his pals.
If the chairman of a bank hadn't allowed dealings that maximised profit within the regulatory framework, he'd have been fired.
Brown and Clinton, I think, found a chink in the armour of capitalism and drove a knife into it's heart.
"Blame the bankers" is yet another left wing propaganda success.
The fact that it's bollocks doesn't trouble them in the least.
|
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Mar 4, 2011 12:53:14 GMT 1
Why should I? The bankers were just doing their job within the regulatory framework set up by Clinton in the US and Brown, here. All the dodgy deals and mad dealings were checked, signed off and approved by the Financial Standards Agency. The FSA was set up by Brown and staffed with his pals. If the chairman of a bank hadn't allowed dealings that maximised profit within the regulatory framework, he'd have been fired. Brown and Clinton, I think, found a chink in the armour of capitalism and drove a knife into it's heart. "Blame the bankers" is yet another left wing propaganda success. The fact that it's bollocks doesn't trouble them in the least. Had brown put constraints on the bankers he would have been pilloried by the Tory press, which is basically every newspaper. I think Brown was trying to be conciliatory towards the financial institutions to avoid accusations of 'left-wing' bias and look what happened. Then we, the taxpayers, had to bail the banks out and still essential own them yet they still to want to carry on as before. You couldn't make it up. |
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Mar 4, 2011 15:09:32 GMT 1
But your statement was "made up" - by the left wing propaganda machine.
If Brown had left control of the banks in the hands of the bank of england, they would have never been allowed to carry on as they did.
Yes, the tories were calling for less regulation - less but better.
All that was needed was to retain the capital reserve to lending ratio that had stood them in good stead for centuries.
Brown decided this ratio didn't matter hence 125% self certification mortgages, explosion in credit card debt etc etc etc.
This bubble of debt created by Brown resulted in the idiotic house price bubble which has only started to deflate. Add in ridiculous planning restrictions and you get a situation where young people cannot buy a house unless they saddle themselves with monsterous debt. Now there's the double whammy of the credit crunch where the banks have no money to lend so few people can afford to buy houses....never mind the disasterous effect this crunch has on small business finance.
Nope - That bastard Brown should be shot.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Mar 4, 2011 15:26:09 GMT 1
I don't think the nation state has much chance against the globalisation of capital myself. There is no body which can set international rules for multinationals therefore the nation states are beggaring eachother with offers of tax breaks to attract them to their own patch. And we, the little people, the tax-payers, are the source of the bribes to multi-national corps which don't pay tax ANYWHERE!
Capitalism is OK so long as it is REGULATED. Otherwise it becomes mere institutionalised monopoly and plutocracy and the very thing that makes capitalism tolerable - the competition - which should drive down price and raise quality and choice - is lost in a miasma of cartels, takeovers and dirty deals between VERY powerful plutocrats, their agents and now even national governments.
We are witnessing today the relative power of a national government and a multinational Corp with the latest debacle over Murdoch's takeover of BSkyB. Here we have not just a capitalist who controls the means of production but one who also controls worldwide the means of communication - far more important today than mere manufacturing capacity and national governments are AFRAID of him. That's why they don't dare to limit the growth of his empire since he probably has the power to bring them down.
|
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Mar 4, 2011 15:49:26 GMT 1
But I bank with an Australian owned outfit where the credit crunch didn't happen, so I've had no problems. I've always had to provide a deposit and show very good figures to gain additional finance.
This goes against the "global" nature of the credit crunch that we always hear from Labour.
I accept fully your problems with capitalism and know it's pitfalls but like democracy, it's the worst system of all - apart from all the rest.
What would you suggest should replace it?
|
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Mar 4, 2011 20:05:07 GMT 1
But your statement was "made up" - by the left wing propaganda machine. If Brown had left control of the banks in the hands of the bank of england, they would have never been allowed to carry on as they did. Yes, the tories were calling for less regulation - less but better. All that was needed was to retain the capital reserve to lending ratio that had stood them in good stead for centuries. Brown decided this ratio didn't matter hence 125% self certification mortgages, explosion in credit card debt etc etc etc. This bubble of debt created by Brown resulted in the idiotic house price bubble which has only started to deflate. Add in ridiculous planning restrictions and you get a situation where young people cannot buy a house unless they saddle themselves with monsterous debt. Now there's the double whammy of the credit crunch where the banks have no money to lend so few people can afford to buy houses....never mind the disasterous effect this crunch has on small business finance. Nope - That bastard Brown should be shot. The banks acted irresponsibly in my view and should have known better but then greed is a powerful motive. |
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Mar 4, 2011 20:15:24 GMT 1
We are told the news part of BSkyB will be independent because Murdoch won't have a majority share but he has a habit of getting what he wants, this is my fear.
I would not be surprised if SKY news eventually emulates the news channels in the States where the capitalist agenda holds sway. No serious stories that might be seen to undermine the status quo is given air-time unless of course they're daft.
|
|
