Banks bonuses - "to be billions"

Status
Not open for further replies.
As I mentioned before, I am not, nor would I ever absolve any financial institution of what happened here in the housing market over the past five years. Nor am I defending the banks. What I am saying is that there is plenty of blame to go around. Many on here believe that it's JUST the banks and nothing else that caused the whole mess.

Here's a good commentary on the CRA and it's role in the mess (as a few of you have brought up bank lending standards.)

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6

If you don't like it, then you can just Wiki CRA for more info.

you can debate this like the chicken and the egg scenario, but basically it comes down to this,
in the UK, pre the80s;
to get a mortgage from a bank or building society you needed to pass certain criteria, these were,

1) be in full time employment
2) have a deposit, usually minimum of 10%
3) have a good credit history, sometimes a guarantour

having passed these requirements you were then offered a mortgage of...

90%

the problem came AFTER the banks and financial institutes had lobbied,for many years, for the relaxation of regulations which were set in place after the great depression.
it was around the thatcher era this happened, the proof is their, but im no school teacher, so go find it yourself. I DID.

yes there is plenty of blame to go round, but the facts present a different picture, before thatcher people were happy to go with the old system, what changed? conservative policies, which sold off cheap affordable housing, while thatcher pushed the values of home ownership, while restricting councils from replacing those homes sold, at silly prices, ending the low cost/affordable homes sector .
banks were now able to offer 100 % mortgages, it was not surprising this figure would grow, greed and stupidity go hand in hand, and this is why we find ourselves in this situation today, yes people were niave and a bit silly/greedy, but who led them? who encouraged them? who gave them the money? once you start to roll a marble downhill it becomes difficult to stop.
 

No doubt Banks were enablers. The masses were trying to follow the American dream to fast and got caught east prey for the sub-prime mess. The big banks have much to much power and special lobbying rights.
 
Last edited:
to those who argued the case for these leeches, using the RISK factor of the job to justify nothing but pure greed.

today its announces 12000,yes TWELVE THOUSAND servicemen/women are to told their jobs are gone, REAL risk takers, who do not get bonus related pay, who do not have million pound saleries, who do not, in some cases ,have all their limbs, now tell me again why those f'''king cheating lying scum deserve their bonuses, why we should treat them with kid gloves, and why the f..k they should not be thrown in a dark dank cell until they realise just how mundane their job truly is.
 


The conclusion stinks: the problem can be solved by shrinking governement and opening up countries more fully to the market. Sounds like a 'solution' that gave us the problem in the first place.

What the Economist means when they say they fear 'populist' outpourings is people holding the state to account and wanting them to act on behalf of the people rather than de-regulating the whole of the economy and then propping up this shit system with bail out money paid for by cuts in their jobs and services when it comes crashing down. Of course, the Ecomonist likes to call that outpouring of anger dangerous and link it to the rise of authoritarian government as in the 30s.

Shameful tvvats.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Shop

Back
Top