More state intervention to rescue failing banks

[MikeTV]

World central banks act to prevent fresh credit crunch
Some of the world's biggest central banks have announced a programme of co-ordinated action designed to support the global financial system.

Essentially the banker's dodgy practices have lead them up the proverbial creek, and (western) world governments are intervening to rescue them. Again. Welcome to the year 2008.

What ever happened to capitalism? It's socialised banking.

Governments seem to be doggedly convinced that the only path to economic success is to lend more to all those who have already completely max'ed out their credit lines. "all they need is some more cheap credit...and all our problems will magically disappear". You simply couldn't make it up. They've learned nothing whatsoever from 2008, or even the 1930's.

It's no wonder we're facing economic ruin.

 

[MikeTV]

Oh look, Barclays Capital's share price has jumped 9% today, and still rising. RBS are up 10%. Citibank +5%. Goldman Sachs +5%.

Are these record increases? Not far off, I'd imagine.

And they have been rising for the past week, anyway.

Merry Christmas Bankers,

- from the taxpayers.

 

[stanga]

Oh look, Barclays Capital's share price has jumped 9% today, and still rising. RBS are up 10%. Citibank +5%. Goldman Sachs +5%.

Are these record increases? Not far off, I'd imagine.

And they have been rising for the past week, anyway.

Merry Christmas Bankers,

- from the taxpayers.

Barclays hasn't been rising for the past week. It's been on a downward trend since October with all the Eurozone tomfoolery (precipitated by and a direct result of the profligate spending by socialists in the PIGS).

As a shareholder in Barclays, this is good news. That's capitalism!

 

[MikeTV]

Barclays hasn't been rising for the past week.

Yes it has. These are the NYSE close numbers (in dollars):
23/11/2011 9.24
25/11/2011 9.62
28/11/2011 10.43
29/11/2011 10.52
30/11/2011 11.40 (current price)

There is nothing capitalist about a government bailout.

 

[MikeTV]

It's been on a downward trend since October with all the Eurozone tomfoolery (precipitated by and a direct result of the profligate spending by socialists in the PIGS).

It's been on a downward trend since 2007. Could it be that shareholders are fed up with banks awarding themselves massive bonuses as reward for destroying the company's asset base? I wonder...

 

[kav]

It's been on a downward trend since 2007. Could it be that shareholders are fed up with banks awarding themselves massive bonuses as reward for destroying the company's asset base? I wonder...

Could it be that they sold a huge part of their business and released additional shares (thereby diluting share price) to help avoid the need for government intervention? I wonder...

 

[Heroik]

Oh look, Barclays Capital's share price has jumped 9% today, and still rising. RBS are up 10%. Citibank +5%. Goldman Sachs +5%.

Are these record increases? Not far off, I'd imagine.

And they have been rising for the past week, anyway.

Merry Christmas Bankers,

- from the taxpayers.

The same taxpayers that will be spending "their" money this christmas using "their" visa/mastercards?!

Oh yes...as the Churchill dog would say

 

[BISHI]

The same taxpayers that will be spending "their" money this christmas using "their" visa/mastercards?!

Oh yes...as the Churchill dog would say

I suspect this year will be very lean on the highstreets. I predict enormous January sales as traders try desperately to make a decent profit and the public holding out until then to spend what little disposable income they have left........

 

[stanga]

Yes it has. These are the NYSE close numbers (in dollars):
23/11/2011 9.24
25/11/2011 9.62
28/11/2011 10.43
29/11/2011 10.52
30/11/2011 11.40 (current price)

There is nothing capitalist about a government bailout.

To be fair, we're talking about two different entities. Barclays Plc is listed on the LSE. It's been on a downer since October and the sovereign debt crisis precipitated by Europe's socialists intensified.

 

[freemind]

Profits are privatised....

Losses are nationalised...

Bonuses all round...

“It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” - Henry Ford

Money IS debt. It can only ever be created as a debt. It is how the current money supply is set up to function. It may well work to as a brake to stop nations in need of access to international markets or aid to stop them from pumping out too much of the stuff but...

Inherent failure is built in to all financial markets. Failure at personal, local, national & international levels. When you have money only ever created as a debt, with interest (usury) attatched, but only ever introduce the principal (original debt amount) into the money supply, systemic failure, especially in a fiat currency system, is gauranteed. At some point someone is gauranteed to fail to pay & someone is gauranteed to go unpaid.

Paul

 

[MikeTV]

To be fair, we're talking about two different entities. Barclays Plc is listed on the LSE. It's been on a downer since October and the sovereign debt crisis precipitated by Europe's socialists intensified.

No, we're not talking about different entities. It's listed on both the LSE and NYSE.

It's been on a downer since 2007, as I said earlier. And it's been on a "upper" for the past week, as I also said at the beginning. I really have no idea why you are trying to take me to task on this?

 

[MikeTV]

Could it be that they sold a huge part of their business and released additional shares (thereby diluting share price) to help avoid the need for government intervention? I wonder...

And your point? I feel sorry for the poor suckers that bought them. But at least they haven't needed to hold back on bonuses to improve their capital position. That just wouldn't do, would it? Oh no. Let the dumbass shareholders pay - that's the ticket!

(especially when the shareholders are just all our pensions funds being managed by financial institutions)

 

[kav]

And your point? I feel sorry for the poor suckers that bought them. But at least they haven't needed to hold back on bonuses to improve their capital position. That just wouldn't do, would it? Oh no. Let the dumbass shareholders pay - that's the ticket!

(especially when the shareholders are just all our pensions funds being managed by financial institutions)

You made one of your many ridiculous, ill-informed comments:

Could it be that shareholders are fed up with banks awarding themselves massive bonuses as reward for destroying the company's asset base? I wonder...

so I attempted to counter it with part of the actual reason for the drop in share price:

Could it be that they sold a huge part of their business and released additional shares (thereby diluting share price) to help avoid the need for government intervention? I wonder...

 

[MikeTV]

You made one of your many ridiculous, ill-informed comments:

One of your many personal attacks.

so I attempted to counter it with part of the actual reason for the drop in share price:

But they did that to improve the company's financial position, so that doesn't explain a continual slide in the price. That reflects a decline in demand for barclays shares. And so to ask again - could it be that shareholders are fed up with banks awarding themselves massive bonuses as reward for destroying the company's asset base? (BTW it's a rhetorical question).

 

[kav]

One of your many personal attacks.

I said that your comment was ridiculous and ill-informed, there was no personal attack. And "many" - got any examples?

 

[MikeTV]

I said that your comment was ridiculous and ill-informed, there was no personal attack. And "many" - got any examples?

Firstly, you said "one of your many...". That's a statement about me personally.

Secondly, who is ill-informed? Only people can be ill-informed. When people say statements are ill-informed, they mean the person making them.

Thirdly, when you use terms like "ridiculous" and "ill-informed" you are criticising the person. Because nobody would intentionally make such statements.

Lastly, we could all go around saying "your comment is ridiculous and ill-informed" to everything that we disagreed with. But it wouldn't make much of a discussion, would it? It's a meaningless thing to say it in isolation, because it's just your opinion on the matter.

 

[MikeTV]

And "many" - got any examples?

How about this after Sidicks had attacked something I said:

Well done for the balanced response sidicks.

Implying that my responses were not well balanced, obviously. Not contributing anything, just attacking.

 

[stanga]

How about this after Sidicks had attacked something I said:
Implying that my responses were not well balanced, obviously. Not contributing anything, just attacking.

Oh dear.

 

[MikeTV]

Oh dear.

He did ask!

 

[kav]

How about this after Sidicks had attacked something I said:
Implying that my responses were not well balanced, obviously. Not contributing anything, just attacking.

Okay Mike, if me complimenting someone on writing a balanced post (in response to someone else, not you!) is the best example you can find of me making a personal attack, I think I can rest easy.

While I read most of them, I don't comment on all these threads - I don't mind admitting that I am not well-educated enough on most of these subjects to contribute anything worthwhile. However there are some things I have first hand experience with, and those things I do sometimes comment about. Your posts have an obvious agenda, and you seek out what you can to support that agenda, ignoring any valid contributions which might cause you to reconsider some of your opinions, rather than try to see that there may be valid points on both sides. I try to take a position on things based on valid information and how much common sense I see in the commentary from people who have informed themselves about the subject, something I don't tend to find in your cherry-picked comments about banking.

As for not contributing anything when I do post, you and I both know I have tried many times, but anything I say falls on deaf ears, ignored or belittled because it doesn't tally up with what you want to believe. Banks are at fault - absolutely. So are the governments. So are the people. Consequently, attempting to pin all our woes on one specific element of society is no better than blindly following one particular political party as if they are paragons of virtue and the opposition are the spawn of satan.

 

[MikeTV]

Your posts have an obvious agenda, and you seek out what you can to support that agenda, ignoring any valid contributions which might cause you to reconsider some of your opinions, rather than try to see that there may be valid points on both sides.

The agenda criticism is interesting, because how I could possibly benefit in any way from pursuing an agenda? It doesn't matter how many times I point what they are doing, it falls on deaf ears, and is belittled, or I am accused of pursuing an agenda - just like you have done. And the yet the evidence of what they are doing just keeps on piling up. But despite this, those that want to deny it continue to rant and rave that it's not happening.

The banks, on the other hand, have every reason for wanting to pursue an agenda. So if anyone deserves your consideration, it's those that are trying to stop them.

As for not contributing anything when I do post, you and I both know I have tried many times, but anything I say falls on deaf ears, ignored or belittled because it doesn't tally up with what you want to believe. Banks are at fault - absolutely. So are the governments. So are the people. Consequently, attempting to pin all our woes on one specific element of society is no better than blindly following one particular political party as if they are paragons of virtue and the opposition are the spawn of satan.

But only one of those three (banks/government/people) are getting super-rich by it. You could say the same thing about organised crime - it's the criminal's, the government's, the people's fault.

 

[MikeTV]

You made one of your many ridiculous, ill-informed comments:

One of your many personal attacks.

However, I will concede that I used the word "many" to counter your use of the word "many", but only if you concede that simply stating your disagreement with someone else's view isn't contributing anything at all to the debate?

 

[MikeTV]

Consequently, attempting to pin all our woes on one specific element of society is no better than blindly following one particular political party as if they are paragons of virtue and the opposition are the spawn of satan.

Now you've gone from "argumentum ad hominem" to "straw man". I don't believe I have ever expressed support for one of the parties in this issue, or called anyone either paragons of virtue or satanic.