Overpaid bosses ?

[Atilla]

lol.

Also, what do you have against duck ponds?

Haha - very good... I suppose ducks gotta live too right...

But do they really belong in a gnome's mansion??? I feel at this moment in time that would be the appropriate question to ask don't you think?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/24/2579161.htm

PS. Ducks didn't like it anyway... They obviously have more taste than this daft old past his life by date ******.

 

[spreader_legger]

The problem with your solution is that there is a thing called moral hazard.

If lenders & home owners know that they are going to get bailed out by the tax payer at each turn, this will lead to continued unscrupulous lending which got us into this sub prime quagmire in the first place

I made this suggestion before and still fail to see why the situation was handled as such. Well I do but here it is.

People are unable to meet their mortgage payments so instead of helping people who need the help ie the debtor, bailouts were given to the creditors ie the banks.

What the **** was that all about???

Here is the alternative scenario....

Governments - tax payers pay the mortgages of the people who can not afford their mortgages - thus banks remain afloat as loans remain serviced.

The level of funds would not have been in the billions and people no longer in massive debt will have regular money to spend. Social cost of maintaining would be less and once economy picks up and people find jobs, they can in due course pay back loans.

Banks could have approached shareholders - as prescribed in capitalist system to raise funds if required.


This certainly is a no brainer to me but I fail to grasp why peoples homes are taken away and those same very people have to pay a higher tax in due course to pay for the money given to the banks who have no social responsibility at all.




We need to have a revolution that's for sure. I support all the strikers and the unemployed and all those people who have had their homes taken away from them. Bankers are parasites, the government and politicians and judicial system are bent *******s and the army is off fighting daft wars killing people who pose no danger to the UK instead of sorting out the fockers here building duck ponds in their back yard...

 

[dick_dastardly]

I made this suggestion before and still fail to see why the situation was handled as such. Well I do but here it is.

People are unable to meet their mortgage payments so instead of helping people who need the help ie the debtor, bailouts were given to the creditors ie the banks.

What the **** was that all about???

Here is the alternative scenario....

Governments - tax payers pay the mortgages of the people who can not afford their mortgages - thus banks remain afloat as loans remain serviced.

The level of funds would not have been in the billions and people no longer in massive debt will have regular money to spend. Social cost of maintaining would be less and once economy picks up and people find jobs, they can in due course pay back loans.

Banks could have approached shareholders - as prescribed in capitalist system to raise funds if required.


This certainly is a no brainer to me but I fail to grasp why peoples homes are taken away and those same very people have to pay a higher tax in due course to pay for the money given to the banks who have no social responsibility at all.


We need to have a revolution that's for sure. I support all the strikers and the unemployed and all those people who have had their homes taken away from them. Bankers are parasites, the government and politicians and judicial system are bent *******s and the army is off fighting daft wars killing people who pose no danger to the UK instead of sorting out the fockers here building duck ponds in their back yard...

Well comrade Atilla, if you're going to buy everyones' house for them you may as well buy them a car aswell to put on the driveway hadn't you?

Although I guess they might have to catch the bus every day for 10 years whilst they're waiting for the car to be delivered.


dd

 

[Hotch]

Haha - very good... I suppose ducks gotta live too right...

But do they really belong in a gnome's mansion??? I feel at this moment in time that would be the appropriate question to ask don't you think?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/24/2579161.htm

PS. Ducks didn't like it anyway... They obviously have more taste than this daft old past his life by date ******.

Ah! I thought you might of been on about that. Wasn't sure if there was something I was missing though. Indeed, ridiculous.

 

[Pat494]

Could be the duck house was really a cunning plan to house more of " the little people "
leprechauns and such

:cheesy:

 

[scose-no-doubt]

I agree with dastardly though. To subsidise the public in that manner would have been an admission of the outright failure of capitalism rather than this quasi-socialist mess we're in at the moment.
As with most things in life it's all grey.

 

[Atilla]

The problem with your solution is that there is a thing called moral hazard.

If lenders & home owners know that they are going to get bailed out by the tax payer at each turn, this will lead to continued unscrupulous lending which got us into this sub prime quagmire in the first place

Problem with your approach is you have no risk management or control...

Supply and demand sort of thingy mi jingy flufy fuzzy stuff.

 

[Atilla]

Ah! I thought you might of been on about that. Wasn't sure if there was something I was missing though. Indeed, ridiculous.

The ducks thought the same thing.

You have duck blood in you and I think you should represent the duck popullation of the UK...

Get Daffy and Donald to put you up for election...

 

[Atilla]

Well comrade Atilla, if you're going to buy everyones' house for them you may as well buy them a car aswell to put on the driveway hadn't you?

Although I guess they might have to catch the bus every day for 10 years whilst they're waiting for the car to be delivered.


dd

So you go and buy everyone who already have two houses and two jags some more houses...

Nice...

 

[Atilla]

I agree with dastardly though. To subsidise the public in that manner would have been an admission of the outright failure of capitalism rather than this quasi-socialist mess we're in at the moment.
As with most things in life it's all grey.

Do the sums.

Even 5m households mortgages at £3K p/m = £36K p/a = $180bn.

How much have the banks been given?


As housing markets recover those houses will be sold off by the banks.

Think it through...


Total transfer of wealth and enslavement by the rich *******s at the top. Much richer than us on these threads and including successful traders.

 

[dick_dastardly]

So you go and buy everyone who already have two houses and two jags some more houses...

Nice...

Well done Atilla :clap:

Yes, that's pretty much how communism works


dd

 

[Pat494]

All Cameron has to do is tax the fatcats huge payouts at a very high rate like 95%,
like Dennis Healey did in the 70s.

 

[Atilla]

All Cameron has to do is tax the fatcats huge payouts at a very high rate like 95%,
like Dennis Healey did in the 70s.

No mate - on the contrary the Bank tax levy he is downgrading from the 2bn that was set already.

It's all BS the media write about.


I reckon your average public servants need to strike and let the whole system collapse before mass public are taken notice of.

A bit like the **** holes shutting service and see how long the brain hands and feet last in constipated glory...

 

[Hotch]

Atilla, have you considered that the blame being given to the banks is all media BS?

 

[Atilla]

Atilla, have you considered that the blame being given to the banks is all media BS?

You suggesting they have been given the bail out because they are innocent victims.

Bonuses are what compensation for injury suffered?


Nice - that should go in the joke section...

 

[Hotch]

No, it was more of an ironic musing on what you've written, but if you really want my opinion.

The bailout was for the dumb suckers who bought houses with 125% mortgages, not the bankers.

Bonuses are justified for 99% of bank employees, I agree Fred the shred shouldn't get his silly pension package which was outlined etc, but most of the staff are just doing they're job, whether that be sales, programming, hell, even the guys at retail level are being hit by this crap. Sure you can say that it's not fair to pay a bonus when times are bad but that's ignoring the facts, these people are worth the money, if you get rid of their bonuses their wages are just going to go up (in fact that's happening already).

If you want to go along the lines of "herp derp, I could do a better job than that", then go ahead and do it.

I think people need to be reminded that the banks didn't do anything illegal to cause this crisis, ergo I don't see why they should be punished.

I've always been against the bailout, but that's the problem, not the banks. Ergo, my problem lies with the government.

 

[Atilla]

No, it was more of an ironic musing on what you've written, but if you really want my opinion.

The bailout was for the dumb suckers who bought houses with 125% mortgages, not the bankers.

Bonuses are justified for 99% of bank employees, I agree Fred the shred shouldn't get his silly pension package which was outlined etc, but most of the staff are just doing they're job, whether that be sales, programming, hell, even the guys at retail level are being hit by this crap. Sure you can say that it's not fair to pay a bonus when times are bad but that's ignoring the facts, these people are worth the money, if you get rid of their bonuses their wages are just going to go up (in fact that's happening already).

If you want to go along the lines of "herp derp, I could do a better job than that", then go ahead and do it.

I think people need to be reminded that the banks didn't do anything illegal to cause this crisis, ergo I don't see why they should be punished.

I've always been against the bailout, but that's the problem, not the banks. Ergo, my problem lies with the government.

I know about end of year and retention bonuses personally as it is part of my contract having been given a permanent position (used to be contractor). :cheesy:

However, as per my post #12 what you say is not necessarily true.

Yes most of bank staff do work well and deserve bonuses - but my whole point is that the system is well and trully skewed in favour of the parasites at the top who make and set the rules.

As in the animal farm - all animals are equal but some are more equal than others...

Mrs Thatcher declined Arthur Scargills 33% wage demands but granted open expenses scam for the politicians.


My point is that the British system of rewarding failure and incompetent stuck up ******s is what takes this country down the pan. In every aspect of the industrial revolution from building of the railways shipyards, bycycles cars textiles to where we are today.

I can assure you with the ****-ups and continuation of our fragile financial system this sector will also go down the pan soon enough if decent regulation and control is not applied to the industry.

One can not get pigs to regulate them selves. imho... :whistling

 

[scose-no-doubt]

What a load of sh1t, Hotch.
If an organisation fails then why should employees take pay or bonuses? Are the rules different for banks? I'll bet you a penny to a pound that if any of those b1tches failed there would be another phoenix or take over that would have sprung straight away, gobbled everything up and it would have been business as usual the next day.
As for bank employees doing their jobs, on a whole they obviously weren't doing it properly if the org was operating so far outside of proper risk parameters and your 99% figure is pulled out of thin air.

That being said there are more people to blame and I agree that bashing banks alone is unfair but the government is just the yin to the yang of sh1tty corp behaviour across a number of industries imo