Jump to content





Photo

The Global Ecomomey And Is There A Need To Save Banks, Or To Put It Another Way Do We Need To Give A Squalk


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
45 replies to this topic

#1 Rev Jackruss

Rev Jackruss

    Makes friends easily

  • Members
  • 432 posts

Posted 06 October 2011 - 05:46 PM

my personal opinion is to let the banks sink, natural selection at work, ta Darwin the man with the foresight!


#2 Mr. Dreadful

Mr. Dreadful

    Makes friends easily

  • H2G2
  • 706 posts

Posted 06 October 2011 - 05:52 PM

Yep, and when the banks sink the economy collapses completely. They might be messing things up but if we let them implode we'll all go down with them.
Vila: I'm entitled to my opinion.
Avon: It is your assumption that we are entitled to it as well that is irritating.
U651852

#3 Rev Jackruss

Rev Jackruss

    Makes friends easily

  • Members
  • 432 posts

Posted 06 October 2011 - 05:56 PM

that old chestnut! well lets see as it can't be any worst

#4 Mr. Dreadful

Mr. Dreadful

    Makes friends easily

  • H2G2
  • 706 posts

Posted 06 October 2011 - 07:13 PM

How can a complete lack of organised financial infrastructure not be any worse? So many thing will simply be unable to function because society is so reliant on the services banks provide.
Vila: I'm entitled to my opinion.
Avon: It is your assumption that we are entitled to it as well that is irritating.
U651852

#5 ITIWBS

ITIWBS

    Must try harder

  • Members
  • 65 posts
  • LocationCoachella Valley, Riverside County, CA USA

Posted 06 October 2011 - 08:12 PM

Six one way, half a dozen the other.

Sometimes, when I see major bailouts for the banks, I'm reminded of the reasons the US Forest service stopped allowing salvage timbering operations in the aftermath of forest fires.

A banking institution that cannot break itself of speculation in bad paper, irrespective of the form of that bad paper, should be broken with a will, not bailed out. At least the individuals behind the speculation in bad paper should.
A domestic Rose. Next photo up, a landscape.

#6 swl

swl

    Must try harder

  • Members
  • 79 posts
  • LocationStirling

Posted 06 October 2011 - 09:05 PM

What concerns me is that £75bn has been given to the banks in the hope they'll release it into the economy in the form of lending. But that's like giving a pish-soaked jakey a £ for a cup of tea and trusting that he won't spend it on booze. If I was handing over £75bn I'd want guarantees, not hope.

Edited by swl, 06 October 2011 - 09:05 PM.


#7 Peanut

Peanut

    Getting there

  • Members
  • 190 posts

Posted 06 October 2011 - 09:11 PM

I think call their bluff, if you can rummage around for that type of money, there are better ways than spending it, than on banks

#8 Rev Jackruss

Rev Jackruss

    Makes friends easily

  • Members
  • 432 posts

Posted 06 October 2011 - 10:36 PM

£75 billion of tax payers money to be given to banks! GOD ALMIGHTY! These people got us into this mess in the first place! I rest my case, hang on to the money!

#9 Edward the Bonobo

Edward the Bonobo

    Must try harder

  • Members
  • 86 posts
  • LocationSpace.

Posted 07 October 2011 - 08:55 AM

So...you are setting up a business. But...lawks a lummee! ...you have no start-up cash. Where are you going to find the first month's rent for your market stall?

Yes, we need some kind of...money lending function...and people are unlikely to lend money unless they some how gain from it. This is called 'Banking'. Now there are some who will argue that this sort of 'nice', retail banking is somehow separate from the 'nasty', dangerous world of financial wheeler-dealing. Not true. The latter is simply a product of the retail bankers wishing to remain competitive with other banks (if they don't stay competitive they go broke and can't lend money) by accumulating money while managing risk. Only they're not necessarily good at it because it's complicated...plus the whole system is unstable and prone to periodic collapses - and possible a terminal one.

So, basically, all this banking stuff is an unfortunate by-product of someone wishing to mong costers from a barrow. So far so Capitalist.

The Darwin analogy is a good one. It was a couple of 19thC Anglo-German thinkers who first pointed out that the world of human commerce works on Darwinian principles. Financial competition provides the organising principle to human society just as surely as big fish eating little fish explains the origin of species. It's always seemed odd to me that people will accept what Darwin or Dawkins say about evolution but throw their hands up at what...other people...say about economics.

So. The question is...as a species, are we happy to let evolution take its course. 'He's got diabetes? Screw him! His genes are unfit' We've kind of...evolved beyond that, surely?

Similarly...we could let banks go down. So our costermonger has his loan called in. So he can't make a living. And he can't pay the market owner. Or the apple wholesaler. Who can't pay the farmer. And nobody's kids get an Xbox for Christmas...

But, hell! That's just evolution...er..business.

Ook!


#10 Rev Jackruss

Rev Jackruss

    Makes friends easily

  • Members
  • 432 posts

Posted 07 October 2011 - 09:11 AM

yep! thats the ticket!

#11 Edward the Bonobo

Edward the Bonobo

    Must try harder

  • Members
  • 86 posts
  • LocationSpace.

Posted 07 October 2011 - 09:30 AM

Sounds like I'm advocating for Capitalism, eh?

Well...I sort of am. We could just let the banks collapse, imploding the whole system with them and find some as yet unknown way of doing things. Various people have various ideas on what that might look like. I'm willing to give it a go if enough people will pitch in. What say you?

But what we can't do is just piddle around the edges. Even things like outrageous bonuses are an integral and inescapable part of the system. If the banks go, we all go. The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.

Ook!


#12 Vip

Vip

    Top of the class

  • Members
  • 1728 posts
  • LocationGMT

Posted 07 October 2011 - 11:35 AM

Banks = money. As it's unlikely we're going to revert to a barter economy any time soon, unfortunately yes, we need banks.

Much as part of me kinda thinks that getting rid of money would be a good thing - it's just an artificual construct that only exists because we believe in it and its power - I can't see a replacement that doesn't involve Bad Things.
U188069

#13 Rev Jackruss

Rev Jackruss

    Makes friends easily

  • Members
  • 432 posts

Posted 08 October 2011 - 03:16 PM

just got in from the pub! found the biggest spider in the mens toliets scared the life out of me!

#14 Rod

Rod

    Fidget

  • H2G2
  • 41 posts
  • LocationNew Zealand

Posted 08 October 2011 - 07:40 PM

Banks are necessary, banks are (mostly) good things - but how to regulate without confining them is the problem.
, , , Abandon hype all ye who entry here . . .

#15 Mr. Dreadful

Mr. Dreadful

    Makes friends easily

  • H2G2
  • 706 posts

Posted 08 October 2011 - 09:50 PM

Yup. Banks in and of themselves are not bad... it's the gits running them.
Vila: I'm entitled to my opinion.
Avon: It is your assumption that we are entitled to it as well that is irritating.
U651852

#16 Edward the Bonobo

Edward the Bonobo

    Must try harder

  • Members
  • 86 posts
  • LocationSpace.

Posted 10 October 2011 - 10:06 AM

Yup. Banks in and of themselves are not bad... it's the gits running them.



This is what we call (jargon alert) a 'Bourgeois Liberal Critique' of Capitalism. Inherent in the idea is the notion that everything would be peachy if only everyone were...a bit nicer. Well, it hasn't happened yet and I wouldn't hold your breath. It is in the nature of a successful bank that it is run by Gits. If they weren't Gits, they would be outcompeted by those banks who were run by Gits and would go under. How many toothless alligators to you imagine get to pass their genes on?

Which brings me to bankers bonuses. Look - banks don't bay shiteloads of money to their employees out of niceness. Obscenely large bonuses are part of their competitive edge. We shouldn't object to them unless we also object to banking as a whole...and by implication to Capitalism of which they are an indivisible and inescapable part.

Which, of course, we're entitled to do. But just don't bleat about greedy banks and big bonuses as though everything can be fixed with a little tinkering around the edges. We live in a Gitocracy. That's not because the Gits have chosen to run it but because our civilisation is structured to propel them to the top. Suck it up.


Tangent...ish...but not really. The other night by daughter and I watched the best film ever about Capitalism...in fact the best film ever, full stop: 'The Godfather'

'This isn't personal. It's just business.'


Ook!


#17 Mr. Dreadful

Mr. Dreadful

    Makes friends easily

  • H2G2
  • 706 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 11:49 AM

Well, no, I'm fully aware that it's not as simple as everyone being nice and 'tinkering around the edges'. The only way to fully reform the system into anything other than a Gitocracy is to destroy it and start again... but then that leaves the problem of stopping even worse gits getting into power which is what usually happens.

I dispute that the Gits haven't chosen to run things... no Git ever thought to themselves "I'd best just coast along and see what happens and if I don't get the big prize... well, that's the luck of the draw, innit?", they aimed for the top and used the structure of civilisation to get there. And we let them, time and time again we let them. Because if there's one thing I've come to realise over the years is that humanity as a whole just doesn't learn.

So yeah, I'm not some wishy-washy liberal who thinks it all just needs a few more ponies and rainbows to make everything work, but that doesn't mean I can't despair at the sort of people we allow into power...
Vila: I'm entitled to my opinion.
Avon: It is your assumption that we are entitled to it as well that is irritating.
U651852

#18 Edward the Bonobo

Edward the Bonobo

    Must try harder

  • Members
  • 86 posts
  • LocationSpace.

Posted 10 October 2011 - 12:00 PM

I dispute that the Gits haven't chosen to run things...


OK. Fair enough. It's more that the system depends upon The Triumph of the Gits.

But assuming we are, in broad terms, comfortable with the system that delivers us Smartphones and Tescos and all manner of shiny things, shouldn't we admire the Gits who make all these things possible? After all - it's not even as though they're harming us that much, is it? There are people who are in much worse positions than you or I.

And, of course, not all of them are Gits. Look at George Soros or Warren Buffet who give away billions of the billions they've taken from others...

Ook!


#19 Mr. Dreadful

Mr. Dreadful

    Makes friends easily

  • H2G2
  • 706 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 12:11 PM

Well yeah, the main reason I'm not some chanting revolutionary is because for all its flaws and as much as I dislike the people at the top overall it does work, even if it is like some kind of nightmare combination Machiavelli and Heath Robinson... I lead a comfortable life and to a certain extent I have the freedom to do what I like. That doesn't mean I'm letting my guard down though, because we are edging closer and closer to becoming a police state (yay Prevention of Terrorism Act!)

And yes, there are the philantropists and those guys are great... but I strongly suspect they're in the minority.
Vila: I'm entitled to my opinion.
Avon: It is your assumption that we are entitled to it as well that is irritating.
U651852

#20 Mr. Dreadful

Mr. Dreadful

    Makes friends easily

  • H2G2
  • 706 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 12:16 PM

And obviously I'm still against things that are just plain wrong/stupid like the NHS reforms and so on.
Vila: I'm entitled to my opinion.
Avon: It is your assumption that we are entitled to it as well that is irritating.
U651852

#21 Edward the Bonobo

Edward the Bonobo

    Must try harder

  • Members
  • 86 posts
  • LocationSpace.

Posted 10 October 2011 - 12:24 PM

You may have read between the lines and gathered that I have a slightly different take on philanthropy: why are those billions the philathropists' to give?

OK - I share your qualms over the nastiness that wholesale revolution can bring. But I might draw my line in the sand slightly further out than you do. Having qualms about the Prevention of Terrorism Act is one thing. But there are all sorts of other, economic iniquities that affect people at home and abroad. I'm sincerely not wanting to play More Left Than Thou. It's more a matter of admitting that even the 'good' versions of Capitalism and government envisaged by some are...actually, quite bad. For many.

But so what? Screw 'em. No - sincerely - not a jibe at anyone's selfishness. So long as it all ticks over more or less. You can't expect to please all the people all the time. Etc. The question is....can it all keep on ticking along indefinitely? Or does it inevitably form itself into certain oppressive patterns? Or even...does it (quote alert) contain the seeds of its own destruction?

Ook!


#22 Mr. Dreadful

Mr. Dreadful

    Makes friends easily

  • H2G2
  • 706 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 01:17 PM

Yeah, the notion of pleasing all the people all the time is just ludicrous, despite what many of my liberal brethren (and sistren) seem to think. However, the Gitocrats are also failing to please most of the people most of the time, which is somewhat problematic.
Vila: I'm entitled to my opinion.
Avon: It is your assumption that we are entitled to it as well that is irritating.
U651852

#23 Vip

Vip

    Top of the class

  • Members
  • 1728 posts
  • LocationGMT

Posted 10 October 2011 - 02:57 PM

I don't know about that. While they aren't pleasing people right now, without them people wouldn't have homes, jobs, anything. So I think they'd be less popular if they all suddenly disappeared. They are the dirty, oily grease that keeps the wheels of our economy turning. Much as you don't wnat to get the gunk on your hands, it's a necessary evil.
U188069

#24 Mr. Dreadful

Mr. Dreadful

    Makes friends easily

  • H2G2
  • 706 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 03:20 PM

Oh, I'm aware of that... but because they're not pleasing people a lot of those people are calling for them to be allowed to sink, hence the 'problematic'.
Vila: I'm entitled to my opinion.
Avon: It is your assumption that we are entitled to it as well that is irritating.
U651852

#25 Recumbentman

Recumbentman

    First Day

  • Members
  • 13 posts
  • LocationDublin

Posted 11 October 2011 - 09:58 AM

Banks have to be able to fail, but don't recommend natural selection. It's not pretty, it's not fair, and it doesn't care for us.

The problem is the way corporations have got themselves protected by law; they are treated as persons, but persons that can't be jailed.

Corporation law worldwide has to be rationalised, but since corporations rule the world, who is going to do this?

#26 Edward the Bonobo

Edward the Bonobo

    Must try harder

  • Members
  • 86 posts
  • LocationSpace.

Posted 11 October 2011 - 12:44 PM

A big question is to what extent do Corporations have to be controlled? There are those ideologues who suggest - on very little evidence - that Free Markets are the most effective means of fulfilling human needs. Others suggest that while governments are prone to error, they at least achieve some measure of success when they attempt to manage economies on behalf of We The People. But to what extent? Fully planned economies (with the possible exception of WWII Britain and the US) have tended not to be successful.

Ook!





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users