How Bad Do You Think it Will Get?

[ViolentPanda]

I'm not talking about fred at all. And the government should have absolutely fuck all to do with this man. He works for a private company.

I'm talking about how the banks are being given fucking shedloads of the taxpayers' money man. It's clear as day what i'm talking about!

It's the main reason why i came on this thread to contribute. If the british government can just about give over the whole year's worth of taxpayers' earnings to a couple of banks to 'save' them, then the country is looking somewhat fucked in my view.

That's all.

They haven't been given anything, you unmitigated nincompoop.

 

[fela fan]

The "bail-out" isn't a bail out

Well, you can kid yourself if you want VP.

 

[fela fan]

They haven't been given anything, you unmitigated nincompoop.

Well, i beg to differ.

And it's always interesting to wonder why people feel the need to denigrate others who are just debating stuff. Why do you?

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's a known unknown, in fact.

If you want to be Rumsfeldian about it!

 

[kyser_soze]

yeah, whatever kyser. Life's hardly that serious really. Our long time incommunicado seems hardly to have been missed. It's a pity i even bothered your consciousness man. I apologise for this misdemeanour.

Not. A. Fucking. Clue.

Sort yourself out lad. Even stupid people, even people in the loony bin have a clue.

Fred's employed by the state is he? Salary paid by the state is he? Well then, that would make brown's decision nice and easy: withdraw the robber's pension.

Oh, no? Why not then?

See, you're getting so upset you're not even remembering comments I made not 10 posts ago. Quite frankly Fred's pension allowance is an obscenity, and one that didn't have to be paid - however, it was agreed to as fulfilling his contract, and as I pointed out earlier, if the govt tried to dishonour those contracts it would face expensive legal action that it would inevitably loose.

 

[kyser_soze]

Well, i beg to differ.

On what grounds, fela? What parts of the govt deals are you differing from the legal reality that the banks haven't simply been given the money?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well, i beg to differ.

On what factual basis?

All the money provided by the government is secured. It has loaned liquidity, it has "given" nothing.

 

[ViolentPanda]

And it's always interesting to wonder why people feel the need to denigrate others who are just debating stuff. Why do you?

Because although you have been provided with several clear and neutral explanations of the issues, you persist in holding your opinions. To me a person who holds an opinion in the face of clear facts is an unmitigated nincompoop, ergo you are an unmitigated nincompoop. That's not denigration, that's a very mild assessment of you.

 

[ViolentPanda]

See, you're getting so upset you're not even remembering comments I made not 10 posts ago. Quite frankly Fred's pension allowance is an obscenity, and one that didn't have to be paid - however, it was agreed to as fulfilling his contract, and as I pointed out earlier, if the govt tried to dishonour those contracts it would face expensive legal action that it would inevitably loose.

And would deserve to. If people elect a government to legislate for them in representation (theoretically) of their wishes, then one would hope that said government would not attempt to take legislative action based on politics or ideology, but only on a point of law. If those contracts are watertight, then the government has no basis on which to proceed, even if they do smell a few votes in posturing to the voting public.

 

[fela fan]

That's not denigration, that's a very mild assessment of you.

yeah, well, fine then. Ta ra.

No more to say really. It seems stupid of me to continue talking to such rude people who take great delight in rubbishing other folk. Your life.

 

[kyser_soze]

And that comes from VP, know Urban leftist and disparager of Sir Fred!

 

[Dillinger4]

yeah, well, fine then. Ta ra.

No more to say really. It seems stupid of me to continue talking to such rude people who take great delight in rubbishing other folk. Your life.

I like that out of all the replies you could potentially have replied to, you pick this one.

Saves you dealing with the issues at hand.

 

[kyser_soze]

yeah, well, fine then. Ta ra.

No more to say really. It seems stupid of me to continue talking to such rude people who take great delight in rubbishing other folk. Your life.

Well, when people try and engage with someone, give them information they clearly don't have, and then are repeatedly ignored by the person they're trying to engage with, it's no surprise when they rubbish said person, is it?

 

[fela fan]

See, you're getting so upset you're not even remembering comments I made not 10 posts ago. Quite frankly Fred's pension allowance is an obscenity, and one that didn't have to be paid - however, it was agreed to as fulfilling his contract, and as I pointed out earlier, if the govt tried to dishonour those contracts it would face expensive legal action that it would inevitably loose.

Well then, good for you. I'm not getting upset, but i'm also not that interested in dealing with such negative stuff as i'm getting here. I managed a long time away from this forum and website, but i'm not really sure why i came back. It seems impossible to post without nasty replies being the norm. What is it with some of you lot??

 

[Dillinger4]

e.

 

[fela fan]

Well, when people try and engage with someone, give them information they clearly don't have, and then are repeatedly ignored by the person they're trying to engage with, it's no surprise when they rubbish said person, is it?

Well, actually it is mate. Even if that is what i did, is it really necessary for british people to be so fucking cold? So bloody rude? So dismissive?

 

[Dillinger4]

.

 

[kyser_soze]

What, people telling you actual facts rather than what you want to hear?

No one knows what the potential liabilities still exist in the financial sector

The UK govt has lent the banks money to recapitalise themselves; this will be repaid

RBS and Lloyds, who've had the bulk of govt money, have both effectively been bought by the UKG, and at some point in the future will be sold again, in a similar way to the Swedish govt's bailout of it's banking sector in the early 90s.

So there has been no money 'given' to the banks, which is your central premise.

 

[fela fan]

What, people telling you actual facts rather than what you want to hear?

No one knows what the potential liabilities still exist in the financial sector

The UK govt has lent the banks money to recapitalise themselves; this will be repaid

Facts eh?! Your facts mate. And just where does the uk govt get money from to lend to banks?? Is the govt a bank? Since when did they achieve lending status?

And you think the money will be repaid?? Go on, how can you convince me of that? With facts??!!

 

[bluestreak]

I've changed my mind. I Now Think It Will Get Moderately Bad.

 

[Dillinger4]

Facts can prove anything.

 

[kyser_soze]

Facts eh?! Your facts mate. And just where does the uk govt get money from to lend to banks?? Is the govt a bank? Since when did they achieve lending status?

And you think the money will be repaid?? Go on, how can you convince me of that? With facts??!!

OK, first off the UKG raised the money via bond issues, so there is a taxpayer liabilty for them, but it hasn't come out of the tax take.

Second, the money was disbursed via the Treasury in the case of the RBS and Lloyds buy-outs, and via the Bank of England in the case of other loans.

Well, at some point the UKG will sell the Lloyds and RBS shares it owns, so that money will come back; the remaining loans are securitised, so yes, they will be paid back because the banks are contracturally obliged to do so.

 

[ViolentPanda]

yeah, well, fine then. Ta ra.

No more to say really. It seems stupid of me to continue talking to such rude people who take great delight in rubbishing other folk. Your life.

Fela rids himself of the need to address his fact-free whimsicality by focusing on a mild put-down and blowing it out of proportion. What a hero the man is!

 

[ViolentPanda]

And that comes from VP, know Urban leftist and disparager of Sir Fred!

Who's calling me a "leftist"?

I'll fackin' 'ave 'em!

 

[ViolentPanda]

I like that out of all the replies you could potentially have replied to, you pick this one.

Saves you dealing with the issues at hand.

Ah, you noticed that too, did you?

 

[ViolentPanda]

What, people telling you actual facts rather than what you want to hear?

No one knows what the potential liabilities still exist in the financial sector

The UK govt has lent the banks money to recapitalise themselves; this will be repaid

RBS and Lloyds, who've had the bulk of govt money, have both effectively been bought by the UKG, and at some point in the future will be sold again, in a similar way to the Swedish govt's bailout of it's banking sector in the early 90s.

So there has been no money 'given' to the banks, which is your central premise.

It's also entirely feasible that if the government are planning (as I suspect they'll have to) to hold their stakes medium term (say 5-15 years), then may even turn a profit on their loans. Even if they don't, the loans will have had a side-effect of helping to limit (although by no means eliminate) "fall-out" into wider society.

 

[elbows]

If some people must believe in a grossly oversimplified version of events, then at least try this one:

The bailouts are not robbery. The robbery happened during the good times. The bailouts are filling the huge hole caused by greed, stupidity, wrong assumptions, complacency, corruption, prevailing ideologies, market farces.

Most of these things were not hidden whilst they happened. Dont act shocked, dont act surprised. Dont speak as if you've just had some great reveleation that proves your sinister view of the world and its shadowy elite to be correct.

People are generally not asleep, they know too well the horrors that governments, companies, individuals, ideologies, market forces and friends can unleash. They may choose to keep their heads down, or not to be so cynical and afraid that they become part of the problem, not the solution.

Seems fair enough to be angry at what has happened. But directing all attention and hate towards the remedy, and the news of the sickness, rather than the long decades of sickness itself, seems like a mistake. Fair enough to have complaints about specific detail or bailout, and plans for the future, but no solution is going to be cheap.

Better to be in a position to be moaning about the banks being saved than be moaning due to hunger.

 

[scifisam]

In some ways I'm not worried; out with the old boss, in with the new boss. Barring nuclear war, I think we'll survive. Pretty much all of us are talking about this - on the internet, no less - from homes with decent heating supplies and clean water, in a country where there is at least a pittance to live on if you lose your job. Compare that to how people were living before the depression, and I reckon we'd have to fall a lot further to get as bad as it was then.

Giving up hope, as fela fan advised, would only make the drop deeper.

Well, actually it is mate. Even if that is what i did, is it really necessary for british people to be so fucking cold? So bloody rude? So dismissive?

VP called you an

unmitigated nincompoop.

That was the whole insult.

You're that offended at being called a nincompoop?

Are you living in a Jane Austen novel?

 

[ViolentPanda]

If some people must believe in a grossly oversimplified version of events, then at least try this one:

The bailouts are not robbery. The robbery happened during the good times. The bailouts are filling the huge hole caused by greed, stupidity, wrong assumptions, complacency, corruption, prevailing ideologies, market farces.

Most of these things were not hidden whilst they happened. Dont act shocked, dont act surprised. Dont speak as if you've just had some great reveleation that proves your sinister view of the world and its shadowy elite to be correct.

People are generally not asleep, they know too well the horrors that governments, companies, individuals, ideologies, market forces and friends can unleash. They may choose to keep their heads down, or not to be so cynical and afraid that they become part of the problem, not the solution.

Seems fair enough to be angry at what has happened. But directing all attention and hate towards the remedy, and the news of the sickness, rather than the long decades of sickness itself, seems like a mistake. Fair enough to have complaints about specific detail or bailout, and plans for the future, but no solution is going to be cheap.

Better to be in a position to be moaning about the banks being saved than be moaning due to hunger.

Or mass homelessness. If the banks hadn't been semi-nationalised or loaned money, how many of our urban parks and commons would be seeing latter-day "Hoovervilles" springing up on them, I wonder? See, that's my real fear for this recession/depression; that we have nowhere near plumbed the depths, and that the continuing revelation of new toxic debts over the next few years will "break" enough lenders to start a cycle of foreclosures that'll make the current repossession figures look miniscule.

 

[ViolentPanda]

.