Banks

[Mrs.Sippy]

It can't have escaped many people's notice that since the government's bail out nothing has changed; they're all several billion pounds the richer while the money's safely tucked up in their vaults instead of creating the confidence it was supposed to achieve.They've swallowed up enormous amounts of our money and we're just left standing here having been virtually legally mugged.

Although this may not be the case at present, it's obvious that a few chairmen of multi-national banks can now hold a country to ransom, ignoring their government in preference to snorting still more swill from the trough, allowing the continued syphoning off of funds for their already vastly over-paid directors.

I think the quicker the banks are taken into public ownership the better; at least we'll have a modicum of control, well in theory at least.

Yes, it may well lead to mismanagement (if their record of keeping secure the information we've given them is anything to go by) but I'd rather have that than the all-out greed we have now.

[factor-fiction]

whilst I think the banks deserve criticism for their role which contributed to the recent crisis, I think the action has stabilised the market but I agree it hasn't kick started lending as much as was hoped- but maybe in the long run that's not a bad thing. The banks do need to repay themoney from the 'bail out' and I believe and there were strings attached.

[Mrs.Sippy]

Good point.

[R1Geezer]

The banks have not been given money to safely tuck away. They have been given surety that's all. That alone improves confidence and hence means that the public feel safer and do not go and get their dosh out all at once which would be armeggeddon. It's like if you deposited your money with a friend and I said don't worry because if they abscond with your dosh I'll give it to you. Tada, armageddon prevented, for now at least, no actual cost. Geddit? In the case where actuall money has been used as in Northern Rock for example then the governenet has effectivell become the major share holder so they have something, they also have an incentive to make it work. Please try and look behind the headlines occasionally.

[Mrs.Sippy]

Don't patronise me you arrogant little worm.

Perhaps you'd care to read this:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html ?in_article_id=455461&in_page_id=2

or perhaps this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/article 5258223.ece

or better still, get someone to read them to you.

You DID go to school every day and not just that first one where your mum took you and apparently got lost on the way back after lunch?

[factor-fiction]

i have had a quick look at the Times Online article and its main point is that the banks don't seem too keen to lend money to companies ( and to some individuals) but the article recognises that the bail out was to keep the banking system intact rather than to give money for lending out. The banks were criticised for lending too much money to people who couldn't pay it back- which led to these problems- so it's perhaps not surprising that the banks are now being more cautious about how much they lend and who they lend it to.
I think we'll have to wait a while before we know how successful the bail out has been.

[R1Geezer]

Well thanks for finding articles backing me up very kind. The money as those articles illustrate was used to buy shares. Government investment if you like. From that they get the returns and probably a profit when they sell them in fact it's a refreshing change that the goverment will actually earn from investment rather than taxation. The amounts you mention are approximately 20% of the amounts of surety. Keep digging numpty!

Do they do economics on your planet? Go on dig out your next invertabrate comparison, I'll take that in place of reasoned argument or indeed IQ.

[Mrs.Sippy]

I find it absolutely incredible that someone with such elimentary literary skills (at best) can draw from those articles the inferences you have.

Was the person reading them to you difficult to understand?

Sadly you're so typical of a slowly-emerging underclass of internet users who have finally found a way of exercising their limited cranial activity by adopting a pseudonym which could only have been created by something falling on the keyboard and trying so hard to take part in discussions that have so far proved impossible in person. No doubt the ridicule you've faced up till now has finally found its mark (the time taken to hit the target proving the difficulty of the journey).

Your whole contruction of what you consider to be a lucid, intellectual discussion soon falls into the school playground language of 'MY dad's bigger than YOUR dad' syndrome when faced with the merest hint of resistance, with the frequent terms of abuse replacing reasoned argument.

As for my intelligence, even the least able of my students would find wiping the floor with you as so boring and unfulfilling an experience much like those of the girlfriend of a testicularly-challenged nancy boy, a simile with which you have a great deal in common.

[R1Geezer]

well I'm in mensa does that help?

[Mrs.Sippy]

Well, I AM surprised. I always thought they were far more fussy.

I'm a senior lecturer in mathemathics and statistical studies. I think only a full house beats that, and apparently you don't even have a full deck.

[R1Geezer]

yes they are fussy, they take only the top 2% of the population, currently that's IQ > 146 ish.

Have a go at the test.

I just thought initially that you made a lot of hysterical assumptions in your original post. Clearly you have a problem with dissent.

[Mrs.Sippy]

I'm sure you'll find you were holding your acceptance letter upside down.

I'm always very wary of those who need to join something which they think gives them more gravitas. It's almost as if they feel they need the company of others for support. Nothing violent, of course, but apart from that the archetypal gang culture.

I've got a great deal more respect for those individuals who stand on their own two feet and who let others form their own opinions rather than to have them created in people's minds in the way they'd prefer. Aware of their own shortcomings no doubt.

Back to the girlfriend I see!

Dissent? yes, especially when they're raised by idiots wishing to give just an impression of intelligence but in so doing only highlights their ineptitude. Give me persuasive alternative thought structure certainly but leave it to those more skilled in such matters.

"I just thought originally . . ." if these ramblings are a result of you thinking, perhaps you should stick to your colouring in.

[Mrs.Sippy]

QUICK WORD OF ADVICE

Don't ever, E-V-E-R try and insult those with whom you disagree. Certainly you may well be right in your view, but then equally, so might they. You certainly don't have the monopoly on good sense.

It's THAT which makes you an arrogant little worm.

[LewPaper]

Good for your Mrs.S

I've been watching this thread with increasing interest and if only there were more people on here with like minded views on behaviour and etiquette. Very well done.