I absolutely agree with everything you have said. BUT they will not adopt your re-insurance idea while the existing methods are in place because it costs money.

 

Insurance companies are not saved or bailed-out, their assets and liabilities are transfered to other insurance companies, all the consumer sees is a change in the name on letterhead. Insurance companies are not squeaky clean - anyone with a private pension, life insurance or endowment policy on their mortgage will know they are just as capable of taking stupid risks with other peoples money

This is not the case with banks, when they screw it they screw it and regardless of such schemes, they often take along their customers with them (for example the protection scheme in Belgium covers only up to 100.000 euro, any further amounts are not insured and you just loose them), and then it's nice for them having the government backup with the motivation that 'they are too big to let them fail'.

Banks have needed our money to be rescued from the excessive risks they took, that is a fact, therefore I don't see it the same as the re-insurance case, as far as I know not one of my euro-cents has been used to rescue insurance companies.

I think we are talking in circles here, because that's what the FDIC, FSCS and all those other "insurance" schemes are currently doing. The bank can always foreclose on a bad loan, it cannot magic-up a lost deposit. Since protecting the loan has the same net effect as protecting the deposit then it doesn't matter which you pay the insurance premium on - however, from the insurers perspective the deposits are a lower risk so the premiums for the banks will be lower.

No, there's a big difference, a loan needs to be paid back, an insurance does not (sure you need to pay the premium but not the amount of the eventual damage). What I'm saying is that banks should be compulsorily insured against the risks they take.

 

Banks function because money moves, if money stops moving they simply cannot operate because they don't hold sufficient fixed deposits to pay their loans. Bank 'A' lends the money to customer 'B' and then borrows the same mount from bank 'C', 'B' uses the loan to buy from 'D', 'D' deposits that money with bank 'A', 'C', or even 'E'  - within the system of 'A', 'C' and 'E' there is now a sufficient deposit to cover the loan. All the need to do is ensure that 'A' funds that movement of money by charging 'A' interest on the loan so that 'B', 'C', 'D' and 'E' can all make money.

Yeah that's what I mean, these schemes provide some protection to the bank's customers (often not enough, you may read about the recent case of the 'preferentes' by the big Spanish bank Bankia where a lot of people have lost their savings, my father among them) but they do not really add responsibility to the banks behaviour.

These are funds collected by the government from the banks by the hard way (by law). In a 're-insurance scheme' on the other hand, the re-insurer will carefully judge the risk it is taking, and will not allow excessive risks being taken by the insured party. It provides a more self-regulating mechanism.

It did not work well enough when it was needed, the EU Central Bank has had to inject 40 billion euro into the Spanish banking sector to keep it from bankrupcy.

The insurance business has a common practice called re-insurance, which basically means that the risk of the insurance company is itself insured. Let's say a certain insurance company A operates in region X, if there's an earthquake in region X it is most likely that the insurance company A will not be able to cover all the damages it has insured and would go bankrupt. By re-insurance the damages will be covered by other insurance companies B, C and D, and A can survive. Conversely A is re-insurer of B, C and D so they will pay a part of the costs if the same would happen to B, C or D.

A similar principle should be mandatory for banks so if they do something wrong their customers do not loose their savings and they do not need to be bailed out by yours and my money.

Funny, still haven't received my bonus check in the mail.  

I am aware of the potential consequences of not bailing them out.  But that would have been a more just solution when what was happening was not just market failure but financial fraud.  Weren't Enron, Arthur Andersen, Merck allowed to die?  If the market was supposed to take care of itself, they should have had more faith in its ability to do so than press the panic button. 

By the way, the meltdown happened because they let Lehmann Bros bankruptcy go through anyway which sent ripples through the global financial system.  So they neither averted the crisis nor saved taxpayer money, made a fairly equal mess of both.  Both consequences could have been avoided if only the Fed hadn't tightened so drastically.   Cooling off a loose monetary policy has to be a calibrated process, or the consequences will tend to be drastic.  

Like them or loathe them (and who actually likes them!?) banks are a cornerstone of our society. What is needed is tighter regulation of speculative activities (including commodities trading) globally. 

I completely agree, the too big to fail theory goes against their free market rhetoric.  But then, they never really believed in free markets as an ideology, only in doing whatever was necessary to further their self interest.  

Originally posted by Easy Livin Oh and as for blaming the government. Lets remember that the government is a reflection of the people. The party in power got the most votes and were democratically elected by you and me. The "I didn't vote for them" excuse doesn't wash as the problem emanate from all sides. If you didn't vote at all but could have, you are even more culpable. If you think you could do better, stand for election and persuade the electorate that your way is better.

It remains to be seen who the American people will vote for to bring about change.  They probably thought they were doing so by voting Obama who wrote a book about all these amazing changes as part of his presidential campaign and got the Nobel Prize for it.  Except, they simply voted in one Wall Street Govt to replace the other.   Reagan and Clinton both backed Greenspan and so did Bush.  Bernanke was a Bush appointee and continues admirably with his task of note-printing well into Obama's second term.   Are the American people then to blame for not somehow voting the Libertarian party to power, which has only a 1% share of vote today?   It's been a long time since adult franchise truly reflected the will of the people.   That system was corrupted long ago and bought over by the wealthy.  

Ultimately a system exists to further the power of the ruling class and increase their hold over the middle and working class.   Democracy is a beautifully stable way to achieve it without incurring their wrath (perhaps, until now, when distrust of govts may just have hit an inexorable nadir).   If the people are responsible for the govts they vote to power, why is the President or the Senate given sweeping executive powers?  Shouldn't there be a public referendum for important decisions (like whether Citigroup deserves a bailout)?  And surely that is not even as tough to administer as before with the advancements of the internet.  This is a power struggle, that's what it is, and being the only sections that were really affected by the crisis, the middle and lower classes are rightly protesting it. 
]]> Tue, 05 Mar 2013 18:53:10 +0000 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4733877#4733877 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4733804#4733804 Author: Blacksword
Subject: 92252
Posted: March 05 2013 at 15:40

Originally posted by Easy Livin Sorry, I still think there is a lot of misinformation here. I think it's convenient to jump on a bandwagon to criticise  the "system" without accepting responsibility for it. As I explained previously, bonuses are the "at risk" portion of a person's salary. If you simply paid them the higher salary without any incentive to earn it, would that really be better? A company may be making loses and still need to pay contractual bonuses (to current and former employees). The fact is that if they have met or exceeded the targets they were set to generate in terms of income for the company, they get the contractually agreed bonus. Those who failed and caused the loses don't. As I also explained, sometimes reducing losses is actually meeting an agreed target. That is the real world. Oh and as for blaming the government. Lets remember that the government is a reflection of the people. The party in power got the most votes and were democratically elected by you and me. The "I didn't vote for them" excuse doesn't wash as the problem emanate from all sides. If you didn't vote at all but could have, you are even more culpable. If you think you could do better, stand for election and persuade the electorate that your way is better. As I probably have already said too often, I don't seek to condone or justify the way things are, but I do get irritated by those who seek to blame others for the issues without accepting their own share of the responsibility.

Probably worth remembering that all the main parties on the ballot paper are supporters of the system, so the electorate has little choice. They could of course form their own political parties and challenge the status quo. How successful do you think that would be?]]> Tue, 05 Mar 2013 15:40:34 +0000 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4733804#4733804 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4733779#4733779 Author: akamaisondufromage
Subject: 92252
Posted: March 05 2013 at 14:50

Well apparently Bankers jobs are so dull that we have to pay them shed loads of cash and then pay them shed loads more just in case they go and work somewhere else.  Why is this job so bad?  Everybody else is content to live on a wage and they do their best without having a bonus.  Bankers are not a limited commodity you can train up plenty of people to do this job.  They are not like footballers, theres only one Maradona (luckily) or one Rooney or whatever you can't train people to do what they do (on the whole).

 

Having said that , the EUs answer of limiting Bonuses is not the answer as they will just up the wages which doesn't depend on performance at all.  So it will be worse. 

 

From a UK perspective it is really very sad that we have become so dependent on the banking sector.  I blame it on that B*tch Thatcher who thought we could get everything from the service sector.  Ans successive governments have carried on asi.  We have been sold short. 

Edited by akamaisondufromage - March 05 2013 at 14:51]]> Tue, 05 Mar 2013 14:50:19 +0000 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4733779#4733779 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4733772#4733772 Author: Finnforest
Subject: 92252
Posted: March 05 2013 at 14:42

Well said, Bob]]> Tue, 05 Mar 2013 14:42:02 +0000 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4733772#4733772 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4733742#4733742 Author: lazland
Subject: 92252
Posted: March 05 2013 at 13:55

Originally posted by Easy Livin Sorry, I still think there is a lot of misinformation here. I think it's convenient to jump on a bandwagon to criticise  the "system" without accepting responsibility for it. As I explained previously, bonuses are the "at risk" portion of a person's salary. If you simply paid them the higher salary without any incentive to earn it, would that really be better? A company may be making loses and still need to pay contractual bonuses (to current and former employees). The fact is that if they have met or exceeded the targets they were set to generate in terms of income for the company, they get the contractually agreed bonus. Those who failed and caused the loses don't. As I also explained, sometimes reducing losses is actually meeting an agreed target. That is the real world. Oh and as for blaming the government. Lets remember that the government is a reflection of the people. The party in power got the most votes and were democratically elected by you and me. The "I didn't vote for them" excuse doesn't wash as the problem emanate from all sides. If you didn't vote at all but could have, you are even more culpable. If you think you could do better, stand for election and persuade the electorate that your way is better. As I probably have already said too often, I don't seek to condone or justify the way things are, but I do get irritated by those who seek to blame others for the issues without accepting their own share of the responsibility.

And I wholeheartedly agree with you. An important point - they had to have people to lend to in the first place. That was us, on a credit binge which would "never end". 

Years of political activism taught me one thing above all others. You can fool most of the people most of the time.

God, I'm getting cynical in my approaching dotage

]]> Tue, 05 Mar 2013 13:55:33 +0000 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4733742#4733742 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4733714#4733714 Author: Easy Livin
Subject: 92252
Posted: March 05 2013 at 13:01

Sorry, I still think there is a lot of misinformation here. I think it's convenient to jump on a bandwagon to criticise  the "system" without accepting responsibility for it. As I explained previously, bonuses are the "at risk" portion of a person's salary. If you simply paid them the higher salary without any incentive to earn it, would that really be better? A company may be making loses and still need to pay contractual bonuses (to current and former employees). The fact is that if they have met or exceeded the targets they were set to generate in terms of income for the company, they get the contractually agreed bonus. Those who failed and caused the loses don't. As I also explained, sometimes reducing losses is actually meeting an agreed target. That is the real world.

Oh and as for blaming the government. Lets remember that the government is a reflection of the people. The party in power got the most votes and were democratically elected by you and me. The "I didn't vote for them" excuse doesn't wash as the problem emanate from all sides. If you didn't vote at all but could have, you are even more culpable. If you think you could do better, stand for election and persuade the electorate that your way is better.

As I probably have already said too often, I don't seek to condone or justify the way things are, but I do get irritated by those who seek to blame others for the issues without accepting their own share of the responsibility.

]]> Tue, 05 Mar 2013 13:01:52 +0000 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4733714#4733714 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4733702#4733702 Author: Padraic
Subject: 92252
Posted: March 05 2013 at 12:31

Originally posted by King of Loss  hugely inflated stock market that's going to crash at any time

I still have a lot of cash on the sideline because I also think this is the case, but sometimes I think I'm wrong.

]]> Tue, 05 Mar 2013 12:31:06 +0000 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4733702#4733702 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4733643#4733643 Author: The Doctor
Subject: 92252
Posted: March 05 2013 at 10:26

I don't know about hung as I do not really believe in the death penalty, but they should be forced to work the rest of their lives digging ditches or flipping burgers for sub-minimum wage.  I think $2.00/hour sounds about right.  And obviously, they should be stripped of their wealth.]]> Tue, 05 Mar 2013 10:26:46 +0000 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4733643#4733643 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4733638#4733638 Author: King of Loss
Subject: 92252
Posted: March 05 2013 at 10:21

It's quite hilarious that Ben Bernanke is being promoted as a good central bankerI mean, it's because of his direct monetary policies we have close to double digit inflation and a hugely inflated stock market that's going to crash at any time when the bankers think they can profit off of the next crisis.


Edited by King of Loss - March 05 2013 at 10:22]]> Tue, 05 Mar 2013 10:21:58 +0000 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4733638#4733638 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4733599#4733599 Author: rogerthat
Subject: 92252
Posted: March 05 2013 at 08:40

Originally posted by Easy Livin There's a great lack of understanding or heads in the sand here about how things actually work. As I've said before, I don't seek to justify the way things are, but let's live in the real world. I notice too that no one has refuted the notion that it is our own greed that is at the root of the issue.

I'd suggest you speak for yourself there.  Do you know how conservative - and expensive - retail lending is in countries like India?  I am a qualified accounting professional and work for a large company but when I approached the bank for a home loan, I was only eligible to a loan of about 60% of my take-home pay (though I sought less anyway) and a still smaller percentage of my gross.  But what is the point of prudence, I wonder, if credit is built up like a pack of cards elsewhere in the world and upsets the best calculations.   I'd also like to point out that credit growth was fuelled very largely by an errant Federal Reserve that drove interest rates down to an all time low and then quadrupled it in a matter of a few quarters. If that is not the perfect recipe for financial disaster, I wonder what is.  As I said earlier, I'd not single out the bankers alone for blame because govts, rating agencies were all in it together.   It's a gigantic scam and its perpetrators still live in furious denial of the truth.

Edited by rogerthat - March 05 2013 at 10:30]]> Tue, 05 Mar 2013 08:40:00 +0000 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4733599#4733599 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4733560#4733560 Author: chopper
Subject: 92252
Posted: March 05 2013 at 07:42

Originally posted by fusionfreak Originally posted by rogerthat Yeah, prices of everything has gone up at least by 100% if not more in just the last 5-6 years here.   It's ok for the middle class but I really wonder how the poor can possibly cope with such monstrous inflation. I can tell you it's not very easy all the time for the have nots,everything seems so expensive!But one can't forget that middle classes are also suffering a lot.Bonuses should be diminished and top bankers such as Jamie Dimon or Stephen Hester should be punished because they went dangerously wrong.Every government should separate deposit  from trading in the banks.By the way Jolly Banker by Woody Guthrie is a very good song.

To be fair most of RBS' problems pre-date Stephen Hester. Blame them all on Sir Fred Goodwin.]]> Tue, 05 Mar 2013 07:42:17 +0000 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4733560#4733560 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4733543#4733543 Author: Blacksword
Subject: 92252
Posted: March 05 2013 at 06:57

With the greatest of respect to EL, this situation is actually fairly clear cut, and it is you who appears not to understand how things work.

Bonuses are often paid to traders even when their respective banks are showing losses, and in some cases ahave been bailed out and even put at least in part, in public ownership. It wouldn't be acceptable in any other private sector areas ( andcertainly not the public sector) to pay out millions in bonuses when the business is going down the swannie. It is morally repugnant to raid the public public purse to bail out private corporations only for those corporations to be - in some cases - exempt from corporation tax and to be awarding their crooked staff vast amounts of money for gambling.

Re; "What is the point of bank trader who can't trade? Who says they can't trade? The issue is what they are trading and the level of risk ascociated to the investment, not to mention the moral arguments of trading food stocks, among other commodities, as derivatives; deliberately and irresponsibily inflating huge debt bubbles to make a fast buck, knowing full well that bubbles burst and it is then the rest of us who pay the price. The banks have been able to do this with impunity because there has always been the promise of government bail outs. If this promise was removed the trading would not be so reckless. It may be less profitable in the short term, but it would likely be more stable in the long term. I fail to hear any coherant arguments as to why the fabric of our civilization should be in the hands of five or six mega banks. No one seems bothered by this. they either invest their energies in berating the poor for drawing benefits, or the middle class for having the audacity to own a house. People need to wake the f*** up!

Re; our own greed. Is this the greed that has been agressively encouraged by successive governments? It's easy to say people have minds of their own and should be capable of making the decision to avoid debt without help, but the problem is most don't and consequently can't. If you take a single parent on benefits, who can't afford to buy new clothes for their child, and you give them a credit card, what do you think they're going to do? Cut it up and throw it away? No, they're going to do what every good parent tries to do, and privide for their child. Over the last 20 years the benefit class has been able to borrow through banks and credit card companies. Government has not intervened to discourage or even educate about rhe conseqeunces of debt, because they know that living on the never never creates an illusion of wealth which can score electoral points for them. The psychology of debt is well understood by lenders and politicians alike and is exploited fully.

Edited by Blacksword - March 05 2013 at 07:00]]> Tue, 05 Mar 2013 06:57:56 +0000 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4733543#4733543 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4733492#4733492 Author: Dean
Subject: 92252
Posted: March 05 2013 at 03:45

Originally posted by Easy Livin The assumption that people get bonuses for not performing is quite laughable. These organisations may be ethically challenged, but they do not just give their money away out of charity. Bonuses are usually based on meeting and exceeding pre-set targets. In the case of a company that is on the ropes, the bonus might be payable if the incoming staff appointed to turn it around can initially get the losses down to a manageable level. There's no magic wand for turning the company around, so you have to offer incentives to get the people in who can do the job.

Somehow when a bank gets a bail-out, posts losses for that year and still pays bonuses then that's not laughable, it's cryable. It's tantamount to being criminal.

 

The incentive to get people to do their jobs is called salary. If those people who can do the job were not paid bonuses where would they go? More to the point: what are those people actually for? If they are not "doing the job" and making money for their employers then what are they there for? Seriously, what is the point of an investment banker who cannot invest money? What is the point of a bank trader who cannot trade?

 

So called retention bonuses don't work when they are paid to employees who have already left the company.

Originally posted by Easy Livin There's a great lack of understanding or heads in the sand here about how things actually work. As I've said before, I don't seek to justify the way things are, but let's live in the real world. I notice too that no one has refuted the notion that it is our own greed that is at the root of the issue.

What is there to refute? The purpose of investing in a bank is to get a return on your money, without that incentive you may just as well store your cash under the matress, if saving money with a return that barely keep track of inflation motivated by greed then so be it.]]> Tue, 05 Mar 2013 03:45:39 +0000 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4733492#4733492 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4733480#4733480 Author: Easy Livin
Subject: 92252
Posted: March 05 2013 at 03:08

The assumption that people get bonuses for not performing is quite laughable. These organisations may be ethically challenged, but they do not just give their money away out of charity. Bonuses are usually based on meeting and exceeding pre-set targets. In the case of a company that is on the ropes, the bonus might be payable if the incoming staff appointed to turn it around can initially get the losses down to a manageable level. There's no magic wand for turning the company around, so you have to offer incentives to get the people in who can do the job.

There's a great lack of understanding or heads in the sand here about how things actually work. As I've said before, I don't seek to justify the way things are, but let's live in the real world. I notice too that no one has refuted the notion that it is our own greed that is at the root of the issue.

]]> Tue, 05 Mar 2013 03:08:14 +0000 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4733480#4733480 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4733456#4733456 Author: Blacksword
Subject: 92252
Posted: March 05 2013 at 01:56

^^^ The middle class are feeling it too. You're right, and people often forget that the working class and middle class need each other in a functioning economy. Our last government re-branded the concept of being 'middle class' The labour party - historically the champions of the working class - claimed we were 'all middle class now' In fact all they meant is that we were all now allowed to accrue vast amounts of debt to pay for 'stuff' we wouldn't previously have been able to buy. It made many people feel and look richer, but those people are now discovering they were conned, and this current government is just rubbing their noses in it, and grinding them into the dirt. ]]> Tue, 05 Mar 2013 01:56:52 +0000 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4733456#4733456 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4733102#4733102 Author: fusionfreak
Subject: 92252
Posted: March 04 2013 at 16:48

Originally posted by rogerthat Yeah, prices of everything has gone up at least by 100% if not more in just the last 5-6 years here.   It's ok for the middle class but I really wonder how the poor can possibly cope with such monstrous inflation.

I can tell you it's not very easy all the time for the have nots,everything seems so expensive!But one can't forget that middle classes are also suffering a lot.Bonuses should be diminished and top bankers such as Jamie Dimon or Stephen Hester should be punished because they went dangerously wrong.Every government should separate deposit  from trading in the banks.By the way Jolly Banker by Woody Guthrie is a very good song.]]> Mon, 04 Mar 2013 16:48:43 +0000 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4733102#4733102 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4731238#4731238 Author: rogerthat
Subject: 92252
Posted: March 01 2013 at 21:46

Yeah, prices of everything has gone up at least by 100% if not more in just the last 5-6 years here.   It's ok for the middle class but I really wonder how the poor can possibly cope with such monstrous inflation.]]> Fri, 01 Mar 2013 21:46:56 +0000 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4731238#4731238 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4731222#4731222 Author: King of Loss
Subject: 92252
Posted: March 01 2013 at 21:21

Now I bet everyone is noticing those much higher prices on everything. I think the most obvious stuff is food, oil and other daily necessities. It's just a bugger for us, but in poorer countries, it's terrible.]]> Fri, 01 Mar 2013 21:21:25 +0000 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4731222#4731222 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4731146#4731146 Author: JJLehto
Subject: 92252
Posted: March 01 2013 at 18:15

Indeed, but that's there whacky ass world and really what can ya do besides fume over it?
Just don't make all of us pay for your f**k ups.
Which of course keeps happening, and they are propped up constantly along the way
]]> Fri, 01 Mar 2013 18:15:23 +0000 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4731146#4731146 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4731143#4731143 Author: Dean
Subject: 92252
Posted: March 01 2013 at 18:11

Originally posted by JJLehto EL is right, and indeed while this is not a popular answer...the work required to make it in banking is pretty brutal. Most of us don't want this life, I certainly as hell don't, but you gotta be exemplary in school, get an MBA, then endure insane hours, cut throat competition and just bust your ass. So really kinda messed up to get angry over it, outside a general jealousy. Like I said the issue is when it spills out of their world and starts impacting ours. Now to the point that many modern economies are built heavily on bankers madness. This is the problem.

I couldn't give a flying fart how brutal it is and it certainly is nothing to do with general jealousy. Getting paid for doing your job is called salary, geting paid extra for doing it well is called a bonus. If you get paid a bonus whether you do well or screw up is not a bonus, it's salary with tax benefits.]]> Fri, 01 Mar 2013 18:11:58 +0000 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4731143#4731143 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4731135#4731135 Author: JJLehto
Subject: 92252
Posted: March 01 2013 at 17:52

EL is right, and indeed while this is not a popular answer...the work required to make it in banking is pretty brutal.

Most of us don't want this life, I certainly as hell don't, but you gotta be exemplary in school, get an MBA, then endure insane hours, cut throat competition and just bust your ass. Constant threat of being tossed out and probably get a lot of sh*t from bosses.
So really kinda messed up to get angry over it, outside a general jealousy. Any of us could pursue such a life, if you wanna make big money. So why be mad?

Like I said the issue is when it spills out of their world and starts impacting ours. Now to the point that many modern economies are built heavily on bankers madness. This is the problem!


Edited by JJLehto - March 01 2013 at 17:55]]> Fri, 01 Mar 2013 17:52:49 +0000 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4731135#4731135 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4731010#4731010 Author: Blacksword
Subject: 92252
Posted: March 01 2013 at 14:03

^^^ Yes, that's true re; Russia, and I would agree that 3 WS based agencies should probably not be in charge of rating the whole world. ]]> Fri, 01 Mar 2013 14:03:55 +0000 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4731010#4731010 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4731000#4731000 Author: King of Loss
Subject: 92252
Posted: March 01 2013 at 13:32

Originally posted by Blacksword Originally posted by King of Loss Originally posted by rogerthat Originally posted by Blacksword The conseqence of being downgraded is that it potentially costs more to borrow.  Which is fair as long as ratings agencies do their jobs.   Issuing AAA ratings to instruments derived from underlying subprime mortgages does not strike me as very prudent.  Originally posted by Blacksword Edit: A note of caution around the IMF and the World Bank. They may come out with all these common sense reccomendations for the global economy, but they are not the 'good guys' in all of this. They are the loan sharks of last resort and ultimately feed the global banks with their plunderings. They loan money to a struggling country, and in return the nation agrees to a set of conditions 'Special Drawing Rights' which usually commit that country to selling up its public assets at bargain basement prices to the IMF who then sell them on to the private sector. Aye, we are quite familiar with their ways and keep them at arm's length.   My point was, therefore, that even IMF had sounded out central bankers on the coming tsunami so it is not the case that it was unforeseen and caught them by surprise.   They were and continue to be reluctant to acknowledge the problems of the financial system as it exists today. The whole entire issuance of AAA is fraud itself. If the United States and the United Kingdom looked at its real debt, it should get a FFF debt rating, because both countries are 100% bankrupt. The reason why the government hasn't taken these banks to jail is because the lies that the banks perpetuate help to prop up the entire corrupt and greedy political establishment by issuing fake paper currency. As I said I suspect the criteria for rating is almost certainly not just based on a nations debt. If the nation in question is experiencing an increasing level of GDP growth, then it's arguably in a favourable position to begin reducing that debt. The UK was downgraded because it's economy is at best stagnant, while it's borrowing is going through the roof.

There are countries that completely reduced and paid off their debt like Russia, but their rating is still nowhere as high as the UK, US, Germany, etc.

I think it's not accurate to have 3 Wall Street agencies measure the credit ratings for the entire world, is it? There are some competing agencies coming around, I'm hoping their numbers will get coverage, but doesn't seem like the monopolistic media will grant them much exposure.
]]> Fri, 01 Mar 2013 13:32:36 +0000 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4731000#4731000 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4730994#4730994 Author: Blacksword
Subject: 92252
Posted: March 01 2013 at 13:21

Originally posted by King of Loss Originally posted by rogerthat Originally posted by Blacksword The conseqence of being downgraded is that it potentially costs more to borrow.  Which is fair as long as ratings agencies do their jobs.   Issuing AAA ratings to instruments derived from underlying subprime mortgages does not strike me as very prudent.  Originally posted by Blacksword Edit: A note of caution around the IMF and the World Bank. They may come out with all these common sense reccomendations for the global economy, but they are not the 'good guys' in all of this. They are the loan sharks of last resort and ultimately feed the global banks with their plunderings. They loan money to a struggling country, and in return the nation agrees to a set of conditions 'Special Drawing Rights' which usually commit that country to selling up its public assets at bargain basement prices to the IMF who then sell them on to the private sector. Aye, we are quite familiar with their ways and keep them at arm's length.   My point was, therefore, that even IMF had sounded out central bankers on the coming tsunami so it is not the case that it was unforeseen and caught them by surprise.   They were and continue to be reluctant to acknowledge the problems of the financial system as it exists today. The whole entire issuance of AAA is fraud itself. If the United States and the United Kingdom looked at its real debt, it should get a FFF debt rating, because both countries are 100% bankrupt. The reason why the government hasn't taken these banks to jail is because the lies that the banks perpetuate help to prop up the entire corrupt and greedy political establishment by issuing fake paper currency.

As I said I suspect the criteria for rating is almost certainly not just based on a nations debt. If the nation in question is experiencing an increasing level of GDP growth, then it's arguably in a favourable position to begin reducing that debt. The UK was downgraded because it's economy is at best stagnant, while it's borrowing is going through the roof.

]]> Fri, 01 Mar 2013 13:21:54 +0000 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4730994#4730994 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4730975#4730975 Author: King of Loss
Subject: 92252
Posted: March 01 2013 at 12:42

Originally posted by JJLehto Originally posted by Jim Garten Originally posted by King of Loss I mean have you read the origins of HSBC, I mean the bank was set up for the drug business. Bonuses aside, this is a serious accusation - backup?? ...ya didn't hear? Well OK I don't know about it's origins, that seems a little nutty,  but yeah there was a huge non scandal about HSBC and links to drugs http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-20121213 http://www.nbcnews.com/business/report-hsbc-allowed-money-laundering-likely-funded-terror-drugs-889170 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/02/hsbc-money-laundering-colombian-drug-traffickers_n_2395167.html

Well, it's a thing called narco-terrorism. I think it has been around since some blokes in the City of London came up with a great way to make money.

I mean, just think about how much drugs has flooded into Russia, Europe and the United States these last 20 or so years.


Edited by King of Loss - March 01 2013 at 12:51]]> Fri, 01 Mar 2013 12:42:50 +0000 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92252&PID=4730975#4730975