| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
abelard
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:14 pm Post subject: Re: Should the banks be nationalised? |
 |
|
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 11:52:08 +0100, Robert Henderson
<philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]
There is a good deal of logic in the idea that banks should be
[/quote]
do stop it hatstand....
do start from reality instead of theory.....
money is a government monopoly....it is operated through
the boe....
the boe controls all the other banks a one degree or another....
thus the banks other than the boe are *already* part nationalised!!
the government is now interfering more....
they are not just starting to interfere!!
[quote]nationalised because they create much of the money supply through their
offering of credit and other forms of investment of the money
deposited with them. .Not only that, because the loans and other
investments they offer are of greatly varying quality the taint the
quality of a currency. An analogy would be with a currency based on
a precious metal where the authority responsible for the currency
allowed private mints to produce coin of quality which varied greatly
from that produced by the national mint.
[/quote]
if banks make bad loans it will fail.....
unless government bails it out.....
socialist governments especially incline to bail out banks...
particularly when the bank has the accounts of many voters...
if you bail out banks......why should the banks worry if the make
errors?
the clown>s voodoo 'economics' is now coming home....
naturally he wants to cover it up with still more taxes and the
printing presses
that>s *all* he 'knows'...
because the clown has generated such an unholy mess it>s
gotten beyond the place where you can let *his already*
partly nationalised banks fail...
because there are too many of them....
thus the boe (which is run be someone with a great deal more
intelligence than the whole labour party combined).....
will be naturally inclined to punish where he can....
while still trying to unpick the clown>s disastrous incompetence
in order that sheep like you can still eat...
and business does not slip into more chaos
[quote]The amounts being guaranteed by the British government have become so
colossal that (£500 billion in total for the latest support offered by
Darling and probably something nearer £1 trillion if the costs of
the Northern Rock nationalisation and all the guarantees and government
credit lines established since them are added together) that question
has to be asked why not simply nationalise the banks?
[/quote]
you>re a typical daft socialist......
the problem is due to government incompetence...
so you want more government interference....
only a socialist could be so dumb!
[quote]Could it be done? The present total market value of Britain’s
four largest banks is less than £100 billion. What the cost would be
for all UK banks is debatable but it is unlikely to exceed £250
billion., a fraction of the exposure the taxpayer already has.
Moreover, there would be no necessity to purchase a large part of
British banking because most of the banks are in reality insolvent.
[/quote]
pah, by which accounting regime!!
ah yes.....the one the loony toons clown introduced!!
[quote]They could simply be taken into public ownership without compensation
to the shareholders. The fly in the ointment is the international
status of our banks. Whether the larger banks could survive as
nationalised banks adopting a prudent regime is dubious because of
the danger of major depositors taking money abroad. To that can be
added the likely outflow to foreign parts of specialist staff and the
adverse effect on British reputation for financial solidity .
However, if the present crisis persist it could be that nationalised
British banks would be attractive to depositors because it would be
seen as safe.
[/quote]
typical socialist.......destroy the one thing where britain remains a
world leader....
only socialists could be that dim...
[quote]There is a halfway house. The British government should make a
commitment to takeover any bank which cannot carry on trading on its
own account. That would allow the banking shhep to be divided from the
banking goats.
[/quote]
and then do what with them hatstand?
ah yes, support them with still more tax...
it>s about time someone replaced you with something useful
like a valve computer perhaps
regards
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it>s funny -- roger rabbit
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
abelard
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:15 pm Post subject: Re: Should the banks be nationalised? |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 13:59:45 GMT, "RussellT"
<RussellDTurner@telus.net> wrote:
[quote]"Robert Henderson" <philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bfWRSUMYDJ7IFwwU@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
There is a good deal of logic in the idea that banks should be
nationalised because they create much of the money supply through their
offering of credit and other forms of investment of the money deposited
with them. .Not only that, because the loans and other investments they
offer are of greatly varying quality the taint the quality of a
currency. An analogy would be with a currency based on a precious
metal where the authority responsible for the currency allowed private
mints to produce coin of quality which varied greatly from that produced
by the national mint.
The amounts being guaranteed by the British government have become so
colossal that (£500 billion in total for the latest support offered by
Darling and probably something nearer £1 trillion if the costs of the
Northern Rock nationalisation and all the guarantees and government
credit lines established since them are added together) that question
has to be asked why not simply nationalise the banks?
Could it be done? The present total market value of Britain>s four
largest banks is less than £100 billion. What the cost would be for all
UK banks is debatable but it is unlikely to exceed £250 billion., a
fraction of the exposure the taxpayer already has. Moreover, there would
be no necessity to purchase a large part of British banking because
most of the banks are in reality insolvent. They could simply be taken
into public ownership without compensation to the shareholders. The fly
in the ointment is the international status of our banks. Whether the
larger banks could survive as nationalised banks adopting a prudent
regime is dubious because of the danger of major depositors taking
money abroad. To that can be added the likely outflow to foreign parts
of specialist staff and the adverse effect on British reputation for
financial solidity . However, if the present crisis persist it could be
that nationalised British banks would be attractive to depositors
because it would be seen as safe.
There is a halfway house. The British government should make a commitment
to takeover any bank which cannot carry on trading on its own account.
That would allow the banking shhep to be divided from the banking goats.
None of that is a good reason. Time to take an economics course for you.
However, there is a good argument for nationalizing the now private Federal
Reserve in the US.
[/quote]
as if it isn>t already!
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it>s funny -- roger rabbit
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
abelard
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:24 pm Post subject: Re: Should the banks be nationalised? |
|
|
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 12:49:53 +0100, Robert Henderson
<philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]In message <Vr6dnZcombHtDnHVnZ2dnUVZ8q2dnZ2d@bt.com>, Maria
oldwoman@theshoe.com> writes
banks could survive as nationalised banks adopting a prudent
regime is dubious because of the danger of major depositors
taking money abroad. To that can be added the likely outflow to
foreign parts of specialist staff and the adverse effect on
British reputation for financial solidity . However, if the present
crisis persist it could be that nationalised British banks would be
attractive to depositors because it would be seen as safe.
There is a halfway house. The British government should make a
commitment to takeover any bank which cannot carry on trading on its
own account. That would allow the banking shhep to be divided from
the banking goats.
No. The only way that the system can continue is to allow the dodgy
banks to collapse IMV.
You would end up with no banking system because there are few if any
British banks which are solvent. They continue to trade because of the
government credit lines
The option of letting them all go to the wall does not exist because we
would end up with no banking system, something no modern society can
exist without. Take it away and private business would simply collapse,
private individuals be ruined and society reduced to chaos.
[/quote]
you could always bank in iceland
regards
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it>s funny -- roger rabbit
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Bert Hyman
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:29 pm Post subject: Re: Should the banks be nationalised? |
|
|
philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk (Robert Henderson) wrote in
news:bfWRSUMYDJ7IFwwU@anywhere.demon.co.uk:
[quote]There is a good deal of logic in the idea that banks should be
nationalised
[/quote]
A logical argument based on a false premise produces invalid results.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
abelard
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:32 pm Post subject: Re: Should the banks be nationalised? |
|
|
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 05:57:04 -0700 (PDT), Colonel Sanders
<themailbox@unwired.com.au> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 8, 9:49 pm, Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk
wrote:
In message <Vr6dnZcombHtDnHVnZ2dnUVZ8q2dn...@bt.com>, Maria
oldwo...@theshoe.com> writes
banks could survive as nationalised banks adopting a prudent
regime is dubious because of the danger of major depositors
taking money abroad. To that can be added the likely outflow to
foreign parts of specialist staff and the adverse effect on
British reputation for financial solidity . However, if the present
crisis persist it could be that nationalised British banks would be
attractive to depositors because it would be seen as safe.
There is a halfway house. The British government should make a
commitment to takeover any bank which cannot carry on trading on its
own account. That would allow the banking shhep to be divided from
the banking goats.
No. The only way that the system can continue is to allow the dodgy
banks to collapse IMV.
You would end up with no banking system because there are few if any
British banks which are solvent. They continue to trade because of the
government credit lines
The option of letting them all go to the wall does not exist because we
would end up with no banking system, something no modern society can
exist without. Take it away and private business would simply collapse,
private individuals be ruined and society reduced to chaos.
. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website:http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal website:http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Why does society need a debt based economy, only because
the bankers say so?!
[/quote]
do think before posting......
consider a town where every person is locked in their
'house' with no contact with one-another....
does every person manufacture all their own food, computers
and flint arrow heads?
what if you were better than the rest as an arrow maker...
and you want some boiled rat from the chef de cuisine down the
track?
what about that whiz hunter of rats....
will you lend him some arrow-heads....or refuse until he gives
you the some boiled rat?
lending is a time shifting device...
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it>s funny -- roger rabbit
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
abelard
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:49 pm Post subject: Re: Should the banks be nationalised? |
|
|
On 08 Oct 2008 15:29:47 GMT, Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
[quote]philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk (Robert Henderson) wrote in
news:bfWRSUMYDJ7IFwwU@anywhere.demon.co.uk:
There is a good deal of logic in the idea that banks should be
nationalised
A logical argument based on a false premise produces invalid results.
[/quote]
wow, another sane comment.....
i>m gonna watch you :-)
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it>s funny -- roger rabbit
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Maria
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:59 pm Post subject: Re: Should the banks be nationalised? |
|
|
Mel Rowing wrote:
[quote]On Oct 8, 1:00 pm, Maria <oldwo...@theshoe.com> wrote:
Mel Rowing wrote:
The other £50bn. is equity capital injection. That will be handed over
AIUI in exchange for preference shares. That will serve two purposes.
First it will improve the capital base of the sector and second it
will punish the shareholders of failing institutions since not only
will it dilute their holdings (same bank divided by more shares) but
the preference share holders dividend (usually fixed) will take
preference over ordinary share dividend so reducing the latter. In
fact it seems unlikely that any of the big 4 will pay a dividend at
all next time round.
That is the reason that banks shares have been dropping like stones
for the past couple of days or so and nothing to do with whether
Darling>s scheme is successful or not. It>s far too early to make any
judgement on that.
Surely this is yet another feedback loop - the more you pump into the
system, the more the holdings are diluted, the more the share prices
fall, the more money has to be pumped in. etc etc.
I think you miss the point.
The intention of this morning>s action was not to restore the fortunes
of the share market. If major bank shares become penny shares because
of all this then so be it.
Rather it is first to re-capitalise the banks so that they are
strengthened and so less dependant upon the fickleness of depositors
and lenders.
Second through guarantee to reduce risk and so restore confidence. The
lenders will once more begin to lend les fearful of default and
depositors will feel more secure and less vulnerable to bank failure.
[/quote]
I get the point - it just isn>t working because of what I said?
money in -> shares down -> loss of confidence -> money in -> shares down
-> loss of confidence etc.
What I am saying is that whatever they are doing it for, it is possibly
having the effect of losing more confidence, not gaining it. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Maria
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:00 pm Post subject: Re: Should the banks be nationalised? |
|
|
abelard wrote:
[quote]On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 05:57:04 -0700 (PDT), Colonel Sanders
themailbox@unwired.com.au> wrote:
On Oct 8, 9:49 pm, Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk
wrote:
In message <Vr6dnZcombHtDnHVnZ2dnUVZ8q2dn...@bt.com>, Maria
oldwo...@theshoe.com> writes
banks could survive as nationalised banks adopting a prudent
regime is dubious because of the danger of major depositors
taking money abroad. To that can be added the likely outflow to
foreign parts of specialist staff and the adverse effect on
British reputation for financial solidity . However, if the present
crisis persist it could be that nationalised British banks would be
attractive to depositors because it would be seen as safe.
There is a halfway house. The British government should make a
commitment to takeover any bank which cannot carry on trading on its
own account. That would allow the banking shhep to be divided from
the banking goats.
No. The only way that the system can continue is to allow the dodgy
banks to collapse IMV.
You would end up with no banking system because there are few if any
British banks which are solvent. They continue to trade because of the
government credit lines
The option of letting them all go to the wall does not exist because we
would end up with no banking system, something no modern society can
exist without. Take it away and private business would simply collapse,
private individuals be ruined and society reduced to chaos.
. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website:http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal website:http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Why does society need a debt based economy, only because
the bankers say so?!
do think before posting......
consider a town where every person is locked in their
'house' with no contact with one-another....
does every person manufacture all their own food, computers
and flint arrow heads?
what if you were better than the rest as an arrow maker...
and you want some boiled rat from the chef de cuisine down the
track?
what about that whiz hunter of rats....
will you lend him some arrow-heads....or refuse until he gives
you the some boiled rat?
lending is a time shifting device...
[/quote]
The economy was not debt-based originally... |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Maria
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:02 pm Post subject: Re: Should the banks be nationalised? |
|
|
Mel Rowing wrote:
[quote]Money is not circulating because banks are reluctant to lend money to
each other through fear of default, not because they have run out of
money! remove the fear of default and the system will rebalance
itself.
[/quote]
Is this true? Are the figures public so we can see them, and where are
they if so? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
abelard
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:05 pm Post subject: Re: Should the banks be nationalised? |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 17:00:57 +0100, Maria <oldwoman@theshoe.com>
wrote:
[quote]abelard wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 05:57:04 -0700 (PDT), Colonel Sanders
themailbox@unwired.com.au> wrote:
On Oct 8, 9:49 pm, Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk
wrote:
In message <Vr6dnZcombHtDnHVnZ2dnUVZ8q2dn...@bt.com>, Maria
oldwo...@theshoe.com> writes
banks could survive as nationalised banks adopting a prudent
regime is dubious because of the danger of major depositors
taking money abroad. To that can be added the likely outflow to
foreign parts of specialist staff and the adverse effect on
British reputation for financial solidity . However, if the present
crisis persist it could be that nationalised British banks would be
attractive to depositors because it would be seen as safe.
There is a halfway house. The British government should make a
commitment to takeover any bank which cannot carry on trading on its
own account. That would allow the banking shhep to be divided from
the banking goats.
No. The only way that the system can continue is to allow the dodgy
banks to collapse IMV.
You would end up with no banking system because there are few if any
British banks which are solvent. They continue to trade because of the
government credit lines
The option of letting them all go to the wall does not exist because we
would end up with no banking system, something no modern society can
exist without. Take it away and private business would simply collapse,
private individuals be ruined and society reduced to chaos.
. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website:http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal website:http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Why does society need a debt based economy, only because
the bankers say so?!
do think before posting......
consider a town where every person is locked in their
'house' with no contact with one-another....
does every person manufacture all their own food, computers
and flint arrow heads?
what if you were better than the rest as an arrow maker...
and you want some boiled rat from the chef de cuisine down the
track?
what about that whiz hunter of rats....
will you lend him some arrow-heads....or refuse until he gives
you the some boiled rat?
lending is a time shifting device...
The economy was not debt-based originally...
[/quote]
of course it was.....it is even debt bases among chimps and
birds...
every animal who cooperates with another does it on the expectation
of later advantages
regards...
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it>s funny -- roger rabbit
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Maria
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:10 pm Post subject: Re: Should the banks be nationalised? |
|
|
abelard wrote:
[quote]On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 17:00:57 +0100, Maria <oldwoman@theshoe.com
wrote:
abelard wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 05:57:04 -0700 (PDT), Colonel Sanders
themailbox@unwired.com.au> wrote:
On Oct 8, 9:49 pm, Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk
wrote:
In message <Vr6dnZcombHtDnHVnZ2dnUVZ8q2dn...@bt.com>, Maria
oldwo...@theshoe.com> writes
banks could survive as nationalised banks adopting a prudent
regime is dubious because of the danger of major depositors
taking money abroad. To that can be added the likely outflow to
foreign parts of specialist staff and the adverse effect on
British reputation for financial solidity . However, if the present
crisis persist it could be that nationalised British banks would be
attractive to depositors because it would be seen as safe.
There is a halfway house. The British government should make a
commitment to takeover any bank which cannot carry on trading on its
own account. That would allow the banking shhep to be divided from
the banking goats.
No. The only way that the system can continue is to allow the dodgy
banks to collapse IMV.
You would end up with no banking system because there are few if any
British banks which are solvent. They continue to trade because of the
government credit lines
The option of letting them all go to the wall does not exist because we
would end up with no banking system, something no modern society can
exist without. Take it away and private business would simply collapse,
private individuals be ruined and society reduced to chaos.
. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website:http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal website:http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Why does society need a debt based economy, only because
the bankers say so?!
do think before posting......
consider a town where every person is locked in their
'house' with no contact with one-another....
does every person manufacture all their own food, computers
and flint arrow heads?
what if you were better than the rest as an arrow maker...
and you want some boiled rat from the chef de cuisine down the
track?
what about that whiz hunter of rats....
will you lend him some arrow-heads....or refuse until he gives
you the some boiled rat?
lending is a time shifting device...
The economy was not debt-based originally...
of course it was.....it is even debt bases among chimps and
birds...
every animal who cooperates with another does it on the expectation
of later advantages
[/quote]
I mean, before banks were allowed to lend out more than they had had
deposited in them... |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Robert Henderson
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:14 pm Post subject: Re: Should the banks be nationalised? |
|
|
In message
<5e5af38b-9646-4672-b643-09275dc830a5@a18g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, Mel
Rowing <mel.rowing@btinternet.com> writes
[quote]
(1) if the banks are insolvent then they do not have to be purchased
They most certainly do!
If any company becomes insolvent then it>s put into administration on
behalf of its creditors. The administrator by law must raise the
maximum amount he can to distribute amongst the creditors (which would
in this case include the holders of God knows how many trillions of
pounds worth of deposits)
[/quote]
That amount may be zero if the administrator deems that is the best
chance of keeping the company or part of it as a going concern. Only
where a company is liquidated is there a distribution of realised
assets, assuming there are any. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
abelard
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:15 pm Post subject: Re: Should the banks be nationalised? |
|
|
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 08:59:00 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing
<mel.rowing@btinternet.com> wrote:
[quote]The question is therefore who would pay the government to take over
the trillions of pounds worth deposit liabilities in the British
banking system? The answer is nobody would. Therefore the value of
these less the value of any assets inherited (you did say the banks
were insolvent i.e. liabilities >assets) would be the price the
government would end up paying.
[/quote]
of course it is common for big corporations to carry on trading
when insolvent in those terms...
large uk banks have done that several times and traded their
way out over time...
regards
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it>s funny -- roger rabbit
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Maria
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:17 pm Post subject: Re: Should the banks be nationalised? |
|
|
Mel Rowing wrote:
[quote]On Oct 8, 4:59 pm, Maria <oldwo...@theshoe.com> wrote:
Mel Rowing wrote:
I get the point - it just isn>t working because of what I said?
money in -> shares down -> loss of confidence -> money in -> shares down
-> loss of confidence etc.
What I am saying is that whatever they are doing it for, it is possibly
having the effect of losing more confidence, not gaining it.
Forget share prices!
[/quote]
The people who matter aren>t forgetting them! Why are they so worried
about them?
[quote]They go up and down with mood but the company stays the same. It
operates in the same buildings, the same people work for it etc. More
importantly it operates on the same capital base. If that capital base
is inadequate the the only thing that can be done is to inject more
capital and increase the size of that base.
[/quote]
But I was responding to the part where you said this
"The other £50bn. is equity capital injection. That will be handed over
AIUI in exchange for preference shares. That will serve two purposes.
First it will improve the capital base of the sector and second it
will punish the shareholders of failing institutions since not only
will it dilute their holdings (same bank divided by more shares) but
the preference share holders dividend (usually fixed) will take
preference over ordinary share dividend so reducing the latter. In
fact it seems unlikely that any of the big 4 will pay a dividend at
all next time round."
How can this fail to cause share prices to fall and ergo confidence to fall? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
abelard
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:21 pm Post subject: Re: Should the banks be nationalised? |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 17:10:46 +0100, Maria <oldwoman@theshoe.com>
wrote:
[quote]abelard wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 17:00:57 +0100, Maria <oldwoman@theshoe.com
wrote:
abelard wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 05:57:04 -0700 (PDT), Colonel Sanders
themailbox@unwired.com.au> wrote:
On Oct 8, 9:49 pm, Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk
wrote:
In message <Vr6dnZcombHtDnHVnZ2dnUVZ8q2dn...@bt.com>, Maria
oldwo...@theshoe.com> writes
banks could survive as nationalised banks adopting a prudent
regime is dubious because of the danger of major depositors
taking money abroad. To that can be added the likely outflow to
foreign parts of specialist staff and the adverse effect on
British reputation for financial solidity . However, if the present
crisis persist it could be that nationalised British banks would be
attractive to depositors because it would be seen as safe.
There is a halfway house. The British government should make a
commitment to takeover any bank which cannot carry on trading on its
own account. That would allow the banking shhep to be divided from
the banking goats.
No. The only way that the system can continue is to allow the dodgy
banks to collapse IMV.
You would end up with no banking system because there are few if any
British banks which are solvent. They continue to trade because of the
government credit lines
The option of letting them all go to the wall does not exist because we
would end up with no banking system, something no modern society can
exist without. Take it away and private business would simply collapse,
private individuals be ruined and society reduced to chaos.
. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website:http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal website:http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Why does society need a debt based economy, only because
the bankers say so?!
do think before posting......
consider a town where every person is locked in their
'house' with no contact with one-another....
does every person manufacture all their own food, computers
and flint arrow heads?
what if you were better than the rest as an arrow maker...
and you want some boiled rat from the chef de cuisine down the
track?
what about that whiz hunter of rats....
will you lend him some arrow-heads....or refuse until he gives
you the some boiled rat?
lending is a time shifting device...
The economy was not debt-based originally...
of course it was.....it is even debt bases among chimps and
birds...
every animal who cooperates with another does it on the expectation
of later advantages
I mean, before banks were allowed to lend out more than they had had
deposited in them...
[/quote]
banks used to be private before the governments started
interfering on their modern high levels....
they issued their own notes....
a major issue with modern banking is the very fact that it
is mostly a government monopoly......
i don>t know sufficient detail of the history......
but it is certain that for centuries banks have lent money on a
fractional basis....
even if you ignored that....surely you>re still looking at lending
the gold deposited by others at interest....
or will you regard a safe depository as a bank ....
regards
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it>s funny -- roger rabbit
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
