• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Let the free market rip!

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #21
    Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
    Well I rather object to my admittedly not very hard earned money being used to bail out the profligate people who’ve always lived beyond their means.
    Ah well, that's capitalism.

    Comment


      #22
      Originally posted by sasguru View Post
      Are there that many savers who have lost everything?
      I'm sorry but people who put their money in Icelandic banks offering huge interest rates are guilty of not heeding the cardinal rule of money: "nothing's free, if it seems too good to be true, it certainly is"
      And you do not look for the best deals? The Icelandic banks were not offering that much more than the other banks
      The court heard Darren Upton had written a letter to Judge Sally Cahill QC saying he wasn’t “a typical inmate of prison”.

      But the judge said: “That simply demonstrates your arrogance continues. You are typical. Inmates of prison are people who are dishonest. You are a thoroughly dishonestly man motivated by your own selfish greed.”

      Comment


        #23
        Originally posted by TimberWolf View Post
        savers should lose their money as borrows should lose their debts.

        So those of us who have lived within our means should loose it all while those who racked up huge credit card debt should get off scott free?

        For example according to your viewpoint a family who have lived prudently, do not have credit cards and only bought what they could afford should loose everything, whilst some selfish bast'd of a chav gets to keep everything?
        Last edited by Scotchpie; 15 December 2008, 16:07.

        Comment


          #24
          Originally posted by Scotchpie View Post
          So those of us who have lived within our means should loose it all while those who racked up huge credit card debt should get off scott free?

          For example according to your viewpoint a family who have lived prudently, do not have credit cards and only bought what they could afford should loose everything, whilst some selfish bast'd of a chav gets to keep their plasma TV's. flash cards and big houses, which, incidently, they probably had no intention of paying for when they bought them?
          Sounds like a Labour policy in the making.

          Savings are theft Comrade.

          Comment


            #25
            Originally posted by Doggy Styles View Post
            Would you have sex with any of them first?
            Only Caroline Flint. Phwooar!

            sasguru
            ǝןqqıʍ

            Comment


              #26
              Originally posted by Scotchpie View Post
              So those of us who have lived within our means should loose it all while those who racked up huge credit card debt should get off scott free?

              For example according to your viewpoint a family who have lived prudently, do not have credit cards and only bought what they could afford should loose everything, whilst some selfish bast'd of a chav gets to keep everything?

              lose

              Comment


                #27
                Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
                OK, but how about the savers who've lost everything? Do they have to start all over again?
                Does letting the bank go bust imply all their portfolio is destroyed?
                Originally posted by MaryPoppins
                I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
                Originally posted by vetran
                Urine is quite nourishing

                Comment


                  #28
                  Originally posted by Scotchpie View Post
                  So those of us who have lived within our means should loose it all while those who racked up huge credit card debt should get off scott free?

                  For example according to your viewpoint a family who have lived prudently, do not have credit cards and only bought what they could afford should loose everything, whilst some selfish bast'd of a chav gets to keep everything?


                  I like how you quoted a post with the correct spelling of "lose" but typed "loose" yourself. Twice.

                  Nice one.

                  HTH

                  Comment


                    #29
                    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
                    Does letting the bank go bust imply all their portfolio is destroyed?
                    Not if the savings are guaranteed.
                    And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

                    Comment


                      #30
                      Originally posted by sasguru View Post
                      I have been doing a lot of thinking recently and have come to conclusion that all these bailouts etc. are merely postponing the inevitable.
                      No tulip Sherlock !

                      I expect better from sas. It took you "a lot" of thinking to come up with this brainwave?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X