Occupy Hobos

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Rape-enablers would probably be a more accurate label.

---

It would, when applied to those who enabled rape

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

At the hight of the crisis the UK tax payer was on the hook for well over a trillion of your mickey mouse money. I don't really think it's a good deal for the tax-payer at large if a sub-group of tax-payers de facto have the ability to jank back 20 years of taxes paid at any given moment.

---

Don't see people whining about the bail out given to US car companies, who lost the US $14 billion.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/21/auto...exit/index.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Don't see people whining about the bail out given to US car companies, who lost the US $14 billion.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/21/auto...exit/index.htm

---

Then you didn't look very hard :bulb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

The Occupy filth

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Rape-enablers would probably be a more accurate label.

---

Aww, and we weren't allowed to call the tea party racist :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Don't see people whining about the bail out given to US car companies, who lost the US $14 billion.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/21/auto...exit/index.htm

---

That's odd, it was brought up all the time :bulb: of course I have no idea if US car companies were just crappy/obsolete or if they'd actually been irresponsible/criminal like eg. some entities in the financial sector.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Don't see people whining about the bail out given to US car companies, who lost the US $14 billion.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/21/auto...exit/index.htm

---

Hey, another red herring.

Rand, why are you treating all these things as monolithic groups (social movements, protesters, banks, bailouts, taxes)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

That's odd, it was brought up all the time :bulb: of course I have no idea if US car companies were just crappy/obsolete or if they'd actually been irresponsible/criminal like eg. some entities in the financial sector.

---

And yet where is all the outrage now? GM lost the government far more than the banks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

And yet where is all the outrage now? GM lost the government far more than the banks.

---

Citation?

"The banks" are still too big to fail, too big to save, haven't unwound their risk and contagion, and continue to pose global threats. How is that ongoing cost being valued?

The link above shows that the auto bailout cost the government $15 billion.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/03/...-the-fdic-exp/

The cost of the bank bailout has been about $9 billion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

And yet where is all the outrage now? GM lost the government far more than the banks.

---

er how much did each cost society as a whole, and in what way? Like I said earlier I don't know if GM behaved in the same way the bankers did. If they did I can post some outrage if that's what it'll take to make you purr

Years of mismanagement by GM, including kowtowing to the union. The company was forced into bankruptcy through its sheer incompetence and had to be completely bailed out by the government. Compare that to the bailout the banks received, and most have already paid back with interest.

I am outraged by GM's incompetent mismanagement and kowtowing. Good thing they didn't crash the world economy at least :mad: crooks :mad:

No, they just almost cost the US millions of jobs. And unlike what happened with the banks, they knew well ahead of time what they were doing and did little to alter their course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

unlike what happened with the banks, they knew well ahead of time what they were doing and did little to alter their course.

---

:haha::haha::haha::haha:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

No, they just almost cost the US millions of jobs. And unlike what happened with the banks, they knew well ahead of time what they were doing and did little to alter their course.

---

:haha::haha::haha::haha:

What was that lady's name at CFTC that tried warning Greenspan and his posse about the danger of unregulated derivatives?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...64_born31.html

Got an estimate on how many jobs ignoring her advice cost, Loki?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

er how much did each cost society as a whole, and in what way? Like I said earlier I don't know if GM behaved in the same way the bankers did. If they did I can post some outrage if that's what it'll take to make you purr

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Years of mismanagement by GM, including kowtowing to the union. The company was forced into bankruptcy through its sheer incompetence and had to be completely bailed out by the government. Compare that to the bailout the banks received, and most have already paid back with interest.

---

Are you going to actually answer the question about value vs cost to society, Loki?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Are you going to actually answer the question about value vs cost to society, Loki?

---

On quantifiable costs I think I've already demonstrated the fact that banks are a net positive to society. Besides Hazir (including the highest-risk scenario which has never happened) I haven't seen anyone question the costs/benefits I've posted.

On un-quantifiable costs v benefits I'd also say that they are a massive positive to society. I'd be curious how many of us have eg ever bought a home and if so how many did so for cash in a briefcase, or how many used a mortgage? It was about this week 12 years ago that I set up my first bank account with Barclays and have done all my banking with them. On a personal level while I've paid for the services where necessary not simply have they obviously made payments easier and safer with the account and plastic, but they helped me balance my finances while an under-grad, made my post-grad studies possible thanks to a loan, allowed me to buy a house with a mortgage etc, etc, etc - I couldn't quantify how much each means to me, but I'm glad they were there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Re. The banks, is this the first time banks have crashed spectacularly? Do your calculations take into consideration the short- and long-term social costs of royal fuckups every decade or so? No to both. Thank you for playing Banker Apologetic. No doubt banks and bankers have done a lot of good but it's ridiculous to pretend that the good negates the bad. The bad is still there

---

Aside from seeing Mary Poppins on TV every Christmas how common is a run on a bank? Well Northern Rock was the first in over 150 years, so its not exactly common. Given our costs for the entire industry totalled to two years taxes (and those costs are still getting repaid so are coming down) I don't think its such an issue.

If you think there are other major drains on society/taxes/whatever then please provide some figures, because the tax receipts of £60-70bn happen every year.

I have no idea at all about the UK, were you guys spared by the financial crisis? I always imagined global finance as being global

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

On quantifiable costs I think I've already demonstrated the fact that banks are a net positive to society. Besides Hazir (including the highest-risk scenario which has never happened) I haven't seen anyone question the costs/benefits I've posted.

snip

---

I think you're mistaken to lump retail banking with investment banking. Same mistake made by de-regulation during Clinton/Greenspan years, and ignoring newly created synthetic financial instruments. Those WMD Born and Buffet warned against that froze our credit markets, took down a few investment firms, exposed AIG's contagion, and almost collapsed the global banking system.

Some of the net negatives can't even be quantified, like $700 TRILLION of opaque deals in the swaps markets, and sovereign debt tangled in the mess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

No, they just almost cost the US millions of jobs. And unlike what happened with the banks, they knew well ahead of time what they were doing and did little to alter their course.

---

Well then shame on them and I hope they get busted, good thing it was just almost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

On quantifiable costs I think I've already demonstrated the fact that banks are a net positive to society. Besides Hazir (including the highest-risk scenario which has never happened) I haven't seen anyone question the costs/benefits I've posted.

On un-quantifiable costs v benefits I'd also say that they are a massive positive to society. I'd be curious how many of us have eg ever bought a home and if so how many did so for cash in a briefcase, or how many used a mortgage? It was about this week 12 years ago that I set up my first bank account with Barclays and have done all my banking with them. On a personal level while I've paid for the services where necessary not simply have they obviously made payments easier and safer with the account and plastic, but they helped me balance my finances while an under-grad, made my post-grad studies possible thanks to a loan, allowed me to buy a house with a mortgage etc, etc, etc - I couldn't quantify how much each means to me, but I'm glad they were there.

---

Is anyone in this thread calling for the abolition of banks? Anyone? I am tired, so I may have missed it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I have no idea at all about the UK, were you guys spared by the financial crisis? I always imagined global finance as being global

---

The financial crisis was two to three years ago and no we weren't, however the cost of the crisis was far, far less than the positives of finance. The crises now are not simply because of the banks however much people love to blame them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

The financial crisis was two to three years ago and no we weren't, however the cost of the crisis was far, far less than the positives of finance. The crises now are not simply because of the banks however much people love to blame them.

---

Wow, this shows such an utter lack in insight that a normal person would end this conversation with a 'whatever'.

First of all, the financial crisis was not two to three years ago, it broke out three years ago and it is still ongoing. The fall-out of it is so fucking unpredictable that nobody, and I mean really nobody, could predict how big the damage from that crisis will be. If it can be contained at all it is still questionable if it won't wipe out all the benefits of modern financials vehicles thought up since the beginning of the 90s.

This is NOT a cyclical crisis Randbland, this crisis is systemic, and the outcome can be uglier than anything any of us could imagine today. My hope is that it won't be quite that bad, but I would not put any money on a good outcome. Good meaning that we can more or less get back to where we thought we were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

I think you're mistaken to lump retail banking with investment banking. Same mistake made by de-regulation during Clinton/Greenspan years, and ignoring newly created synthetic financial instruments. Those WMD Born and Buffet warned against that froze our credit markets, took down a few investment firms, exposed AIG's contagion, and almost collapsed the global banking system.

Some of the net negatives can't even be quantified, like $700 TRILLION of opaque deals in the swaps markets, and sovereign debt tangled in the mess.

---

You are right, that seems to be the part that both Randblade and Loki don't understand when we're talking about this issue. They don't understand that parts of the mess we're in can't reasonably be quantified and that if all the shit hits the fan, the mess could bring the system down alltogether.

And starting from scratch can be a very ugly thing if your economy depends on financial services more than on anything else. (And no Randblade, that is not a jape at the UK, even though you are a bit deeper in that shit than average, it applies to all of the Western World).

Yes, continue blaming all the global problems on the banks and not on the long-term disastrous policies by numerous governments, who were always one major recession away from where we are now. It wouldn't matter how the recession occurred. The second growth stalled, the massive deficits and debts would lead to the problems we're seeing now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Yes, continue blaming all the global problems on the banks and not on the long-term disastrous policies by numerous governments, who were always one major recession away from where we are now. It wouldn't matter how the recession occurred. The second growth stalled, the massive deficits and debts would lead to the problems we're seeing now.

---

Interestingly enough banks did not give a shit about whether or not those credits could be serviced, pretty much as with the sub-prime crisis. What counted was not sound business practise but short term balance sheet bloating as THAT delivered bigger bonuses.

I will give you that politicians of a certain ilk were responsable too; the types that don't give a shit beyond the next elections. The sort of politician you clearly think should be the norm.

There's no denying that there's herd mentality in finance. Everyone believes in the "common wisdom" of the day until it gets transplanted by a totally different "common wisdom". Just because the banks were as unconcerned with the distant future as the rest of society doesn't somehow make them the most blame-worthy part of society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

There's no denying that there's herd mentality in finance. Everyone believes in the "common wisdom" of the day until it gets transplanted by a totally different "common wisdom". Just because the banks were as unconcerned with the distant future as the rest of society doesn't somehow make them the most blame-worthy part of society.

---

The huge difference being that the banks are supposed to have the expertise, which was how they justified their obscene boni. Well guess what? They were not justified because their expertise wasn't worth crap. Also I dare say I was not taken in by this 'common wisdom' as it ran so completely against anything I believed in as financial sanity that I refused to be part of it. For me debts were never an asset, and I dare anybody to prove that I made the wrong decision by not making my spending dependent on how much I could borrow.

I am every bit as worried about the future as people who are in debt up to their necks, but I also KNOW that my choices in the past also gave me a good deal of immunity against the worst case scenario.