Mervyn King blames the banks for the Crisis and the Cuts.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by MrShanklysboots, Mar 4, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Bank of England governor blames spending cuts on bank bailouts | Business | The Guardian

    Not according to most on here - but I think I'll take the word of the Governor of the Bank of England instead.

    Labour overspent - absolutely and I do not wish to revisit that old ground. But King is absolutely on the nail when he says that the cost of these cuts is being borne by those who absolutely did not cause it. In this I include small businesses and the "squeezed" middle class too.

    The Banks caused this and are skipping off into the sunset with pots of our cash, all with the connivance of the Tories - and Indeed the previous Labour administration who failed to enforce swingeing regulation when the banks were in their knees.

    The Barnsley by election was a taster. The March in London on the 26th will be another. The people outside the Westminster bubble ARE angry and are intelligent enough to see through all the spin and bluster. Interesting times indeed.
  2. Doesn't Mervyn need/want any non-exec directorships then?
  3. the banks caused all this you say?
    The groundwork for the cuts was laid during the first half of Labour - Brown broke his 'golden rule' by 2004, then moved the goalposts which bought him until 2006. Actions of the banks have little to no impact on Labour being utterly shite - indeed, the housing bubble can be blamed far more on Gordon's monetary policy - negative real interest rates, and then act all surprised when people get mortgages. Nice one, Gordy!

    Contrary to popular (evidently your) opinion, bank bailouts were actually the right thing to do. Historical evidence (the 1930s depression) shows that letting banks collapse is a really bad idea. And you say that they're skipping off into the sunset with our money - we're skipping off into the sunset with ownership of them. So when, (as has already happened in the case of RBS) they start making profit again, HMG get a share of the loot.

    "The people outside the Westminster bubble ARE angry and are intelligent enough to see through all the spin and bluster"
    Evidence would suggest otherwise, but I do hope that people outside the Westminster bubble are intelligent enough to put blame where blame is due - namely at No.11 Downing Street, circa 2001
  4. What do you suggest we do about the banks?

    I would like to see less, but better worded regulation. Perversely the more regulations there the greater the barriers of entry for new players which reduces competition and increases profits/bonuses. We need more competition.

    Taxing banks/Hedge Funds more will mean they will re-domicile. We've alreaady lost £500m from HFs leaving last year (according the the Treasury). FT: Hedge fund shift costs UK £500m

    Taxing bankers will mean they leave and damage the UK reputation in attracting/retaining another group we really need: entreprenuers. The top 1% of earners pay 25% of all income tax - losing them would be painful...

    So what can we do?
  5. I think Merv's more interested in trying to distract people from the fact inflation is about 5% and you only get 0.5% at the bank at best.
  6. Smug little bitch, aren't we?
  7. I think you'll find that RBS has made losses in the past two years, admittedly less of a loss this year than last, so 85% (the amount of Govt/public ownership) of nothing is nothing.
  8. It was turning an operating profit by August 2010. Short term losses because of Ireland in the second half of the year, but that doesn't detract from the bank as a whole being operationally sound.
  9. Not sure where you're getting your info but this should clear it up a bit :- BBC News - Royal Bank of Scotland announces annual loss of £1.13bn

    Figures quoted are ANNUAL figures
  10. Bankers will do anythng to make money for their bank.
    It is the Duty and Responsibility of Governments to Control and supervise at the highest level.
    Brown was only to happy to take massive tax receipts from Banks/Industry, but neglected his job.
    130% mortgages, 100 to buy your home and 30 to furnish. Asking for trouble.
    Bush gave away the profits made in Clinton's day, a little for the average taxpayer and big bucks for high tax payers.
    He then sent the US Armed Forces on two major wars and did not raise taxes to pay for the Wars. Few exercises are more expensive then War.
    This bought him his second election and Blair's his last two.

    Mr King the only second term Gov of Bank of England not knighted.
  11. The irony of blaming the banks when it is the banks that pay interest on the money you deposit in your current account, savings account, pension plan, investment fund or whatever it is you do with your money, in return for what they do with it.

    Nobody was complaining too hard when their investments/savings were turning a nice little profit but boo hoo when it all goes wrong. Don't want to take the risk, put the money in a low return account and be pleased with your .5% interest rate, take the risk then accept the consequences.

    The hollow housing market, the sell off of the gold reserves and the burden of an ever increasing welfare state would be probably at the top of my list for the reasons why we are financially where we are. I am not discounting the toxic investments of the sub-prime market both in the US and UK; funny what a bit of social engineering can do for you. Make people believe they are entitled to the 6 bedroom mansion and if they are foolish enough to think they can afford it off the back of shelf stacking at the local supermarket, it is more of an indictment of the general population than it is of the financial sector.

    This utter crap about saddling people with thousands of pounds of debt; I cannot recall a Member of the Government popping over to see me and borrowing my credit card. You spent it/benefited from it, you deal with it.

    Off to wibble in the corner.

  12. No, it's not and No, they're not.
  13. So, telec, RBS have, as yet, to return a profit, it was looking good for 2010, but got shafted by the Irish financial situation. No profit means no payback to those that bailed them out in the first place, as I said 85% of nothing is nothing.
  14. That is incorrect.

    The country invested in RBS equity to own 84% of it. It doesn't have to make a profit for the country to get all it's money back with a profit. If the firm is turning round as it is and a profit looks likely the equity price will rise this happened in September 2010 last, and came close a few days ago before Libya kicked-off.