jonc

Well you heard it from my perspective in as much detail I know, I never said there was any "magic" money, there is a massive debt to show for it. How about you show me the same courtesy and answer my question, how do you think the bank was bailed out and funded, I'm interest to hear your perspective instead of copping out.

hodgy0_2

No I am asking who underwrites that debt

tony de wonderful

It's a question of who is ultimately liable for the debt which has been issued to pay for the bail out.

jonc

Well since I'm talking bollox, why don't you answer my question and also tell us who underwrites it and how. Thanks.

hodgy0_2

Fvck me, why don't you read the thread again

jonc

Typical, another cop out.

jonc

Well my answer to his question is obviously a load of bollox, so perhaps Hodgy can, in his own words, enlighten us all. I'm not holding my breath though....

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

FFS he's given you his argument in lucid detail several times, anyone else can see that, why not you?

jonc

Forgive my stupidity, could you please tell me then what Hodgy said about how RBS was bailed out and how that bail out was funded, in lucid detail.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Jeez, as he already said... read the ****ing thread!

jonc

Great, another cop out answer. Can neither yourself or Hodgy not answer my questions or offer another perspective? I have gone through the thread none of his responses specifically answers my question or offer an alternative view point. That is all I'm asking.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Because you are so blind that you cannot see!

jonc

Fine, well then enlighten me, I'm not asking for anything more than that, or is it that you can't answer my questions or offer another view point other that what is printed in the press, you know the lying press you so hate and campaign against. Typically, it is no suprise your only contributions to thread so far amounts to nothing more that snidey and petty little insults. How about you offer something of substance to this debate.

jonc

While F1 and Hodgy compose their next cop out reply, here's something to entertain you.

Love the cuban heels and manly strut

Devildog

Come on Chris

He's made asumptions and assertions, called Jonc and me stupid (despite the fact that we do actually know about tax and the banking system and probably in significantly more detail than hodgy does) ignored the methods by which govenments borrrow money and appears to be stating that

"we the taxpayer funded in its entirety the bank bail out"

That is far from presenting an argument in lucid detail.

Devildog

Of course you do. I wouldnt expect you to understand the finer points of intelligent tax planning

Matteeboy

I see this sort of thing a lot;
"Experts" waffle their way around a scenario; when you analyse what they are saying, it amounts to sweet FA.

Meanwhile those with a bit of common sense see through it all and have a far greater real World understanding.

Devildog

Funny that Matt

I see equally as much of "I don't really understand what's going on so I'll over generalise about what I think has happened based on what me and my mates all agree is wrong with the world when we're down the pub"

"ie, all bankers are ******* and its all their fault"

or

"we the taxpayers have had to pay for it all"

But then you're in the PR industry and I'm in the financial services industry. Of course our approach is going to differ. For me the devil has to be in the detail. If I went about my business with a generalistic attitude without drilling down into the details, I'd not have lasted 5 minutes.

Matteeboy

You have failed (with all your experience) to identify the following blindingly obvious factors:

1) Bailing out banks isn't free.
2) Public finances are funded by tax payers.
3) We all pay tax
4) We all pay for bank bailouts.
5) Banks were a major factor in the current financial abyss we are facing.

The usual smokescreen of patronisation ("we" don't understand, etc), attack (on my industry) and bluster is easy to slice through with even the bluntest knife.

But it sounds like the bank's own PR is working a treat on you and jonc.

Devildog

Matt

Your probelm is that you are so blinkered by your bittereness with certain sectors that you are only taking in what you want to see, rather than what has actually been stated.

Let us look at what you assert I have failed to identify:

1) Bailing out banks isn't free.

Of course its not - no one has said that.

2) Public finances are funded by tax payers.

To a large extent yes. But its not just taxation that provides the funding for government.

3) We all pay tax

No we don't. Take those on benefits, for example.

4) We all pay for bank bailouts.

Indirectly those of us paying tax may have contributed. (But as Hodgy has pointed out, we don't know how much of the tax we pay is apportioned to that, or anything else). Just as we contribute for public spending generally (except where the money used is raised/borrowed from outside of direct and indirect taxation) Public expenditure doesn't just come from taxation. Thats why there's a deficit.

None of us got a demand from HM TReasury asking for £1000 to bail out the banks, did we?

5) Banks were a major factor in the current financial abyss we are facing.

Yes they were, on an institutional level. No one is denying that as far as I can see?

Your tendancy to over generalise and stereotype is hillarious. No one is saying "you don't understand" All I'm saying and I guess jonc is too, is that there is much more to it than you (and arguably Hodgy) appear to want to accept.

And for the record, I don't believe a single thing that comes out of either the Banks or the govenments PR machines.

But its lucky for you that people do believe what PR agencies produce - Or you'd be out of a job.

UK PLC has been f*cked financially since long before the current financial crisis (I do hate that word. Its not so much of a crisis that most of us on here don't have a decent lifestle, drive nice cars, etc, etc is it?) And anyone who thinks that its just "the banks" which have caused all of this needs to get their head out of Russell Brand's ****.

Carnut

I don't think it's just the banks.

Greed is everywhere

I suspect it gives some comfort in just blaming the banks and allows them to sleep a little better knowing they had nothing to do with it.

Matteeboy

I have said earlier in this thread that it's not JUST the banks but they sure made a huge "contribution."

So where else does public money come from? Thin air?

You find my generalisations "hilarious" yet I find your average bankers "patronise," then insult tactics so hollow and obvious, it's even more "hilarious". I still think heads will roll but it's a long way off.

As for PR, I guarantee you read hundreds of PR generated media without any clue who wrote it. Good PR is completely invisible to anyone but an experienced practitioner. You'll have read it today without knowing. Guaranteed.

jonc

Well so far, without any form of a counter argument of those being called out, other than mocking criticism, what they are actually saying is that they know even less about the banking. I can only assume they have no answer or an opposing view; an alternative view other than what they've has read in the press. Obviously the antagonists don't like my answer and chooses to ignore them as they seem unable to differentiate between what the government and what the taxpayer provides. Like many, they simply adopts the ignorant view of blaming bankers for the bailout, even though the bailout plan only applied in 2008 and that the ultimate decision to actually bail out the banks lay with the government at that time and any successive government dealing with the repercussions of that decision.

It's true you could also lay the sole blame of responsibility, rather than partially, for the recession on the bankers, and again, many do, it is after all much more preferable than actually taking responsibility or accountability for their own financial mess of their own making. Ignore that fact that recessions are in actual fact a cyclical 10-15 year event and each having differing triggers in the past, it's just that on this occasion, whilst they are not completely without blame, bankers can take the flack this time round. No more boom and bust? They happen and nothing can stop this process.

Now consider what would have happened had the banks not been bailed out. Now I'm not trying to say that by not bailing out the bankers in 2008 would have caused a complete financial and economic collapse of the UK, I'm just asking just to consider it for a moment. What would have happened, do you think, to people's savings, pensions and mortgages, or even just clearing payments between bank accounts. What would have happened if the government didn't bail out Northern Rock, RBS, Bradford and Bingley, Lloyds, no intervention by the BoE and not guarantee of peoples' savings eg, Icesave?

I'm of the opinion that the bailout was the lesser of the two evils. The short term pain of not bailing out the banks would have been far worse and extreme than had we not and too much for people to bear had they lost all their savings, pensions, homes, lost jobs etc and put this country back decades. The UK as it stands still maintains its AAA rating and is still the global financial hub of the world and still contributes around 10% of UK's GDP.

Save for all the usual "bollox" and knowing nothing comments, what are the alternative views from the antagonists?

Matteeboy

How about this;
The banks put themselves in a position where they needed bailing out.

How about they avoided that in the first place? Ripping off customers, wrongly investing savings, selling toxic loans, employing the "finest" minds to invent ways of dressing up enormous debts as SIVs and so on and so on.

Banking is very simple; investment banking is fundamentally simple. But mixing the two is a recipe for disaster AND incredibly deceitful.

The banks made vast, often fake profits, paid themselves fantasy money then when it all went wrong, WE paid for them.

No one went to prison, no one paid anything back.

Yes other industries use shady tactics and rip people off but nothing on this scale; there should be hundreds of bankers having all their earnings and assets stripped, behind bars - but they got away with it.

The entire industry tried to be too clever and it went wrong; WE picked up the tab. It's the biggest scandal of modern times.

However the supporters try to use micro economics to explain a macro economic situation; it's like returning a new car with a crap paint job only for some geeky car scientist to waffle on and patronise about the chemical composition of paint, somehow blaming you for the issue; I DON'T CARE JUST SORT IT OUT.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

TBH I am bored of the thread and bored of you! I doubt any argument would convince you of anything other than the view you hold anyway so what is the point? Think what you like!

hodgy0_2

boy you are thick

read the thread again - read my posts (not what think I say, not what you imagine I say or think or believe - simply what I have posted)

explain to me where I have apportioned any blame etc etc or indeed "taken a view"

I have simply pointed out your post are total rubbish

this one


and this one


I simply asked you this

you said neither

then you claimed yes it was tax payers money and borrowing

I then asked you who both underwrites and surfers the cost of the borrowing

then you came back with some claptrap about "schemes" - which I pointed out is in effect more borrowing

and again asked the same question

sorry but you are a joke

tony de wonderful

That great: "give us money or we'll crash the economy and ruin you".

jonc

Hodgy, the actual line of questioning and the flow of the argument went like this:

I simply questioned your logic with regards to DD's tax bill, you stated to DD that his tax bill went to paying for the bail out only for you to tell me "our tax system is not generally Hypothecated or itemised", so you contradict yourself since you have no way of telling whether the tax he paid went towards the bailout. It really can't put it any more simple as that. What you are trying to do now is obfuscate your contradiction by quoting me out of context and by moving the discussion on to the bailout (post#112) and questioning what logic I was using given the two choices you presented, to which I replied to neither to those two options.

You then asked me the following, which I thought fair enough, I'll humour you.
I then answered, via TdW, through taxpayers, QE and borrowing.

You then asked

To which I answered through the reprivatisation of RBS will go back to paying the for the borrowing, obviously you did not like it and asked me the same question again.

And in response I answered the government, and went through an explanation of how they raised the money for the bailout only for you to tell me it was bollox and didn't know anything about it.

Not liking that answer as well, you then went on to ask me who underwrites all the bonds, guilts recapitalisation funds and schemes (which you dismiss as rubbish), to which I said the government and partly the tax payer and still insist I didn't have a "scoobydoo"

And nowhere did I accuse you of apportioning blame or taking a view, how could I since you've copped out of giving a view. All I've seen from you is you accusing me of talking bollox with a side helping of insults.

So I answered your questions several times. Since you are incapable of answering the questions I raised to you, you could at the very least do the very thing that you are accusing me of not doing, that is, "read this fvcking thread" again!! And you call me thick!

I have no idea of what you are trying to prove, but any credibility you had in this debate has gone out of the window.

jonc

Another cop out reply, no suprises there then.

jonc

Did RBS, Lloyds, Northern Rock etc demand the bailout?