I'ma struggling to understand what the endgame shall be - Bank bonuses 'to run to bil

[AtW]

You can't blame the bank(er)s, only the government.

So you think police should be blamed for no stopping all criminals well in advance and criminals should get off free because it's someone elses fault not to stop them?

Members of previous Govt should certainly go to jail for criminal negligence, but so should top bankers of banks that required tax payers support - the whole bonus thing is totally wrong because those banks should use that money to repay taxpayers (with profit for risk taken) and also increase capital base of the bank, ffs - they got fook all their own money yet they lend 10-20 times more!

[VectraMan]

So you think police should be blamed for no stopping all criminals well in advance and criminals should get off free because it's someone elses fault not to stop them?

Ah but to be a "criminal" you have to break the law. The police can't be blamed for non-criminals doing things that aren't yet illegal. If the government had legislated to stop the banks doing what they were doing, and the regulators had failed to uphold it, then yes you'd blame the "police". If the banks had done something illegal, then you could blame the bankers. As it stands you can only blame the government for failing to create the laws in the first place.

Actually I don't think it's that simple. I blame everybody. Everybody is responsible for the level of personal debt to some extent. Blaming the banks, and getting all upset about bonusses is a typical socialist reaction. If you're a socialist, there's conveniently always "somebody else" who's to blame for your problems, and bankers are the perfect scapegoat.

[AtW]

Everybody is responsible for the level of personal debt to some extent.

I did not have any debts, nor do I have them now. Do you blame me? Choose your words wisely.

[Bagpuss]

You're talking about attempted remedies and evasive maneuvres, once the dodgy credit was in the system, in other words results not causes.

Not at all the Banks have been lobbying to remove the controls for years

IMF study links lobbying by US banks to high-risk lending | Business | guardian.co.uk

"Highlighting 33 pieces of federal legislation that would have tamed predatory lending or introduced more responsible banking but were the target of intense lobbying, the IMF found that the efforts by banks to resist the legislation overwhelmingly succeeded."

The Banks also lobbied for the repeal of the Glass Stegall Act

Events following repeal
The repeal enabled commercial lenders such as Citigroup, which was in 1999 the largest U.S. bank by assets, to underwrite and trade instruments such as mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations and establish so-called structured investment vehicles, or SIVs, that bought those securities. Elizabeth Warren,author and one of the five outside experts who constitute the Congressional Oversight Panel of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, has said that the repeal of this act contributed to the Global financial crisis of 2008–2009.
The year before the repeal, sub-prime loans were just five percent of all mortgage lending. By the time the credit crisis peaked in 2008, they were approaching 30 percent.

Glass

So saying they were forced by Government is absolute tosh, they lobbied for removal of legislation that was designed to prevent financial crashes. No doubt the Banks are to blame and corrupt/inept government for allowing them to do it (although Governments probably didn't understand the complexity). One thing for sure the taxpayer bailed out those idiotic feckers.

I'm so sick of hearing how the bankers are to blame for everything. If it's true that the banks were allowed to carry on in a fashion that was harmful to the country at large, then the government should have stepped in to stop them. That's the government's job. You can't blame the bank(er)s, only the government.

They aren't to blame for everything obviously some banks/bankers had little to do with this, but those who did are the largest stakeholder, Bigger than Government or those wanting loans. They actively sought to create large gambling institutions based largely on a Ponzi scheme the long term consequences not fully known. They chose not to have enough liquidity should the proverbial hit the fan. While the scheme pays off everyone looks clever, but that's not a reason to mitigate the absolute greedy stupidity. Government were duped no doubt and no doubt it will happen again.

[The_Equalizer]

I am not sure any of you will bother to read this, but I think it's well worth your time:

Positive Money

I've got this nasty feeling that the current system is buggered. Even on a very simple measure, how on earth would anyone in their twenties 'buy' a house?

[Platypus]

I am not sure any of you will bother to read this, but I think it's well worth your time:

Positive Money

I've got this nasty feeling that the current system is buggered. Even on a very simple measure, how on earth would anyone in their twenties 'buy' a house?

I did read it. Too simplistic. Poorly argued.

[KentPhilip]

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12131092]

Tony Benn - Cabinet Minister in the 1964–1970 Labour Government

That quote by Tony Benn doesn't add up. The only "pressure" put on the government by the banks in the 70's was as a result of the socialist government going into debt (again!) and having to go cap in hand to the banks and then the IMF.

Banks help to solve problems, they don't create them.

[scooterscot]

Banks help to solve problems, they don't create them.

I thoroughly disagree.

Banks greed caused the problem in the first place.

It's very easy to blame it on the little one for taking out a risky mortgage etc, but if the product were not available in the first place.

Perpetuated with the idea of continuous wealth generation, without consideration for ethic or moral, banks exploited anyone and anything for profit. They could have stopped way back and sat with smiles on their faces content with the profit they had made. But no, they kept going. We the tax payer even assisted propping up this deeply flawed system.

Someone shall always come worse off in this system and I don't believe that is a direction we should be heading.

[OwlHoot]

That quote by Tony Benn doesn't add up. The only "pressure" put on the government by the banks in the 70's was as a result of the socialist government going into debt (again!) and having to go cap in hand to the banks and then the IMF.

Banks help to solve problems, they don't create them.

Exactly - Bagpuss may be right that the banks lobbied to relax the regulations, but to a large extent that was because they were already in a pickle, or knew one was imminent, having already widened credit availability at the Government's encouragement or even behest.

We'll never change the opinion of someone like scooterscot though. It's just too easy and comforting and intellectually lazy to simply blame the banks for everything, especially when encouraged in that belief by sneaky politicians. No wonder the tabloids and every loud mouthed pub bore in the country thinks the same way.

P.S. I can well understand how easy it was for the Nazis to make the Jews a scapegoat for Germany's financial woes in the 1920s

[Doggy Styles]

Governments are the problem, not banks.

You've got to be realistic - you've got to have banks, they do what they do, and they net the UK coffers many billions. It won't do us any good to hack away at them out of revenge or envy.

If banks are taking too many risks with some products, it is up to our government to regulate or legislate against those products. We used to do that when the BoE had full responsibility for supervising banks, until about 2000, and in those days I don't remember people railing against all banks.