Phillip. The Labour party bailed out the banks. They did it to a) protect citizens savings b) protect the system which supports our economy...without banks there is no credit, without credit there is no consumerism. If they had let the system fail you would have got your end of the World scenario and your revolution. Do you know what that means in reality Phillip? A lot more ****ing hardship, misery and violence than anyone in this country has ever experienced (look around at the countries who have experienced a revolution lately). Certainly it would have meant a lot more pain for this country's poor than some cuts. You talk about the poor being targeted. Well I and my wife have paid a lot more tax under this government. I have always voted to pay more tax and will do again next week...but taxing people like us wasn't enough to cover the frankly, ****ing, huge black hole in the country's finances. They spent more money on trying to recover tax from tax avoiders (I believe they spent £1 billion to recover £9 billion) but nobody has a magic wand. They had to cut, as the Labour party would have, the spend....and most of the spend is on vital public services and the poor. Within this context they tried to do it the fairest way possible (mainly thanks to the Lib Dems). The situation the country finds itself in is mainly down to New Labour and Thatcher before them. The people should be ****ing angry with the Labour party as far as I'm concerned.
I can't see how Clegg avoided the questions to be honest. He was the only one being honest regarding the prospect of post election deals. He even told you what his red lines were.
The Labour party did bale out the Banks, but it was the Tory Party that removed all the safety nets prior under Mrs Thatcher, so that the greedy banks could harvest higher yields, thinking they could manager the high risks, but it was the Tory party that Decided where they would claw back this money, got it! The average citizens savings book (Portfolio) of all the banks in trouble could easily have been moved or sold to institutions or banks that were not in trouble, protecting the average working man and saver, before folding the useless trading side of these banks, it has been done before. You say the world economy would have folded, how do you know that? You make it sound as if every bank was in trouble, but they were not. In Greece the banks raided the customers accounts to sort their own trading mess out, what right did they have to do that? Many Russians lost vast sums of money. Would the world stop trading if the Banks disappeared? I doubt it. You say that people should be angry with the Labour party, why? Did they decide cowardly to attack the sick, the disabled and the poorest in society, to claw back what had been paid to their Banking mates in the City? The banking sector through history has a lot to answer for, they are out of control, corrupt, unaccountable, untouchable, and down right greedy, and their problems are only starting, there is more to come, so who is going to pay for the next round of financial turmoil?
I didn't say that, but you are dismissing him out of hand without reading his analysis, and he's not on his own either............
Iceland had a good response for a while after the crash they basically told everyone in charge to f off ! and replaced their shysters.
About Banks! Public vs. Private is just another dialectic. It matters not whether money is managed privately or publicly. What matters is whether we have stable and cheap (interest-free) money. If a private interest-free Mutual Credit facility can provide it, grand. If Government can do it, fine. A mixture of both is probably the way forward. Central Banks are a mixture of both: they have public and private aspects. But the bottom line is that Central Banks do the bidding of the Money Power’s banking cartel. They keep competition out of the market. They prop up busted banks, maintaining some kind of ‘stability’. They oversee private usurious credit creation and maintain the banks’ ability to rake in trillions per year in interest. They allow the banks to create the boom/bust cycle. Nobody can know for absolutely certain who’s who in the Money Power. But we do know for certain that Jewish Banking families like the Rothschild, the Warburgs, Kuhn and a number of others are in the middle of it. The 19th century was widely known as ‘the age of Rothschild’ and there is no reason (other than their own assertions) to believe that they have surrendered their position of top dog. This is not ‘proof’, but it’s quite substantial. Nobody in his right mind can deny that banking dominates the globe. The only question is who exactly owns these banks. The problem is, that they are owned by a number of Trust funds: Blackrock, Fidelity and a couple more. Nobody really knows who is behind these funds. The issue is the centralization of power. This is the Money Power game and usury, with its 5 to 10T yearly wealth transfer, most of which ending up with the 0,0001% is the ultimate centralizer of power. Moreover: Banking is One. What use is it to talk about Money Power if we don’t understand the Money Power is the banking cartel? There is no competition between banks. Money Power Gold Banks in a ‘free market for currencies‘ is just a bad joke. We all know the CB’s were built by the banks, not the other way around. The banks own the Fed outright. They nationalized most other CB’s because private CB’s got a little too obvious due to Hitler. Originally they were lenders of last resort, maintaining stability in the system, necessary to maintain control of the money supplies of the world. The Daily Bell and all the others would have us believe there is too much regulation, the Marxists tell us there is not enough regulation. But the problem is banking itself. Too much usury. Too much deflation. Usury and Banking are One. Deflation and Banking are One. They will always look for freedom and the choice of voluntary contracts, preferably enforced by the State. But they don’t mind hiring some Blackwater mercenaries either. Banking is One and it cannot be regulated, nor can it be reformed. Banking is the issue that has swept through the ages. It was conceived in iniquity and born in sin. Silver daggers and garlic are what we need.
Iceland has a population of only 330,000...not much bigger than Swansea then. "Economic boom and crisis[edit] See also: 2008–11 Icelandic financial crisis and 2009 Icelandic financial crisis protests In the years 2003–2007, following the privatization of the banking sector under the government of Davíð Oddsson, Iceland moved toward having an economy based on international investment banking and financial services.[38] It was quickly becoming one of the most prosperous countries in the world but was hit hard by a major financial crisis. The crisis resulted in the greatest migration from Iceland since 1887, with a net emigration of 5,000 people in 2009.[39] Iceland's economy stabilised under the government of Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, and grew by 1.6% in 2012.[40] Many Icelanders, however, have remained unhappy with the state of the economy and government austerity policies. The centre-right Independence Party was returned to power in coalition with the Progressive Party in the 2013 elections"
See if you can find out who controls Barclays Bank? Let me know if the ROTHSCHILD family name crops up anywhere in your research Terror.........
I am no economics wizard but if they let the banks go bust here not all of them would have gone would they ? And the ones that did could have written off debts and mortgages of a large number of people that could have used the extra disposable income generated to pump more into the recovery by spending ? Also either the gov bank guarentee scheme or a part of the money used to bail the banks out could have covered public savings in them ? And new better controlled banks could have been born in their place. The so called top bankers that we are lead to believe have to be kept here or they would go elsewhere should have been shown the door and saved a fortune on their wages and bonuses, there must be some home grown clever dicks that can use a calculator that could have replaced them cheap as chips and still be on a good whack ! Obviously this is to simplistic and off the cuff so could be silly but sometimes the simple things are good things ?
Are the big banks really as powerful as some people say that they are? Do they really control the global economy? If you asked most people, they would tell you that governments control the global economy. But the campaigns of our politicians are funded by the ultra-wealthy, the big banks and the large corporations that they control. Others would tell you that the Federal Reserve and the rest of the central banks around the world control the global economy. But the truth is that the Federal Reserve was established by the bankers and for the benefit of the bankers. As you will see below, at the very core of the global economy there exists a “super-entity” of financial institutions that control an almost unimaginable amount of wealth and power. These financial institutions and the ultra-wealthy individuals behind them are really the ones that are pulling all the strings. In this world money equals power, and the borrower is the servant of the lender. When you follow the pyramid all the way to the top, it begins to become very clear who really is in control. In business schools all over America today, instead of dreaming of starting new businesses and contributing something positive to society, most business students are dreaming of going to Wall Street and getting rich. But Wall Street doesn’t actually create or build anything of value for society. Instead, the bankers make most of their profits by essentially pushing money and paper around. In a recent article, Chris Martenson commented on this… Today, some of the most celebrated individuals and institutions are ensconced within the financial industry; in banks, hedge funds, and private equity firms. Which is odd because none of these firms or individuals actually make anything, which society might point to as additive to our living standards. Instead, these financial magicians harvest value from the rest of society that has to work hard to produce real things of real value. While the work they do is quite sophisticated and takes a lot of skill, very few of these firms direct capital to new efforts, new products, and new innovations. Instead they either trade in the secondary markets for equities, bonds, derivatives, and the like, which perform the ‘service’ of moving paper from one location to another while generating ‘profits.’ Or, in the case of banks, they create money out of thin air and lend it out – at interest of course. But just because they aren’t adding much value to society does not mean that these big banks are not extremely powerful. In fact, anyone that underestimates that power of these monolithic financial institutions is being quite foolish. A team of researchers at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich studied the relationships between 37 million companies and investors worldwide, and what they found was absolutely stunning. What they discovered is that there is a “super-entity” of just 147 very tightly knit companies that controls 40 percent of the entire network… When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a “super-entity” of 147 even more tightly knit companies – all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity – that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. “In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network,” says Glattfelder. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group. So exactly who are the companies that are at the core of this “super-entity”? Well, almost all of them are banks or financial institutions. The following is a list of the 50 “most connected” companies from the study, and the notes in parentheses are from Chris Martenson… 1. Barclays plc 2. Capital Group Companies Inc (Investment Management) 3. FMR Corporation (Financial Services) 4. AXA (Investments & Life Insurance) 5. State Street Corporation (Investment Management) 6. JP Morgan Chase & Co (Bank) 7. Legal & General Group plc (Investments & Life Insurance) 8. Vanguard Group Inc (Investment Management) 9. UBS AG (Bank) 10. Merrill Lynch & Co Inc (Bank) 11. Wellington Management Co LLP (Investment Management) 12. Deutsche Bank AG (Bank) 13. Franklin Resources Inc (Investment Management) 14. Credit Suisse Group (Bank) 15. Walton Enterprises LLC 16. Bank of New York Mellon Corp (Bank) 17. Natixis (Investment Management) 18. Goldman Sachs Group Inc (Bank) 19. T Rowe Price Group Inc (Investment Management) 20. Legg Mason Inc (Investment Management) 21. Morgan Stanley (Bank) 22. Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc (Bank) 23. Northern Trust Corporation (Investment Management) 24. Société Générale (Bank) 25. Bank of America Corporation (Bank) 26. Lloyds TSB Group plc (Bank) 27. Invesco plc (Investment mgmt) 28. Allianz SE 29. TIAA (Investments & Insurance) 30. Old Mutual Public Limited Company (Investments & Insurance) 31. Aviva plc (Insurance) 32. Schroders plc (Investment Management) 33. Dodge & Cox (Investment Management) 34. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc* (Bank) 35. Sun Life Financial Inc (Investments & Insurance) 36. Standard Life plc (Investments & Insurance) 37. CNCE 38. Nomura Holdings Inc (Investments and Financial Services) 39. The Depository Trust Company (Securities Depository) 40. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance 41. ING Groep NV (Bank, Investments & Insurance) 42. Brandes Investment Partners LP (Financial Services) 43. Unicredito Italiano SPA (Bank) 44. Deposit Insurance Corporation of Japan (Owns a lot of banks’ shares in Japan) 45. Vereniging Aegon (Investments & Insurance) 46. BNP Paribas (Bank) 47. Affiliated Managers Group Inc (Owns stakes in 27 money management firms) 48. Resona Holdings Inc (Banking Group in Japan) 49. Capital Group International Inc (Investments and Financial Services) 50. China Petrochemical Group Company Are you starting to get the idea?
The global economy truly is completely dominated by banks and other financial institutions. In the United States, the big banks are not just content to own other companies anymore. Now, some of our largest banks are actually starting to directly get into businesses such as “electric power production, oil refining and distribution, owning and operating of public assets such as ports and airports, and even uranium mining”. The following is an excerpt from a letter that several members of the U.S. Congress recently sent to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke… We write in regards to the expansion of large banks into what had traditionally been non-financial commercial spheres. Specifically, we are concerned about how large banks have recently expanded their businesses into such fields as electric power production, oil refining and distribution, owning and operating of public assets such as ports and airports, and even uranium mining. Here are a few examples. Morgan Stanley imported 4 million barrels of oil and petroleum products into the United States in June, 2012. Goldman Sachs stores aluminum in vast warehouses in Detroit as well as serving as a commodities derivatives dealer. This “bank” is also expanding into the ownership and operation of airports, toll roads, and ports. JP Morgan markets electricity in California. In other words, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and Morgan Stanley are no longer just banks – they have effectively become oil companies, port and airport operators, commodities dealers, and electric utilities as well. This is causing unforeseen problems for the industrial sector of the economy. For example, Coca Cola has filed a complaint with the London Metal Exchange that Goldman Sachs was hoarding aluminum. JP Morgan is currently being probed by regulators for manipulating power prices in California, where the “bank” was marketing electricity from power plants it controlled. We don’t know what other price manipulation could be occurring due to potential informational advantages accruing to derivatives dealers who also market and sell commodities. The long shadow of Enron could loom in these activities. You can read the rest of their letter right here. This week, Goldman Sachs has been facing allegations that it has cost American consumers billions of dollars by manipulating the price of aluminum. The following is from an article that was posted on CNBC… Hundreds of millions of times a day, thirsty Americans open a can of soda, beer or juice. And every time they do it, they pay a fraction of a penny more because of a shrewd maneuver by Goldman Sachsand other financial players that ultimately costs consumers billions of dollars. The story of how this works begins in 27 industrial warehouses in the Detroit area where Goldman stores customers’ aluminum. Each day, a fleet of trucks shuffles 1,500-pound bars of the metal among the warehouses. Two or three times a day, sometimes more, the drivers make the same circuits. They load in one warehouse. They unload in another. And then they do it again. This industrial dance has been choreographed by Goldman to exploit pricing regulations set up by an overseas commodities exchange, an investigation byThe New York Times has found. The back–and-forth lengthens the storage time. And that adds many millions a year to the coffers of Goldman, which owns the warehouses and charges rent to store the metal. It also increases prices paid by manufacturers and consumers across the country. If that sounds shady to you, that is because it is shady. But as the big banks continue to gain even more power in our society, this kind of thing will become even more common. So what can we do about it? Not much. Do you think that the media will tell us the truth about all of this? I wouldn’t count on it. At this point, there are just six giant media corporations that control more than 90 percent of the news and entertainment that you see on your television. And those six giant media corporations are very hesitant to do anything that will damage their corporate owners or their corporate advertisers. Do you think that our politicians will do anything about all of this? I wouldn’t count on it. In national elections, the candidate that raises more money wins more than 80 percent of the time. Our politicians know where their bread is buttered, and as history has shown most of them are very good to the guys with the big checkbooks. As I said at the top of this article, money is power, and according to a report that was released last summer, the global elite have up to 32 TRILLION dollars stashed in offshore banks around the globe. The global economy belongs to them. We are just living in it. But hopefully if enough people start waking up, someday we will see some significant changes. One of my favorite musical artists of all-time, Michael W. Smith, once wrote a song that contained the following lyrics… Tell me, how long will we grovel at the feet of wealth and power? Tell me, how long will we bow down to that golden calf, now? (How long will be too long) Will the people of the world ever get sick and tired of the overwhelming power of the big banks and start demanding changes?
Conspiracy theories aye you may laugh but even if there`s a grain of truth in them it makes our lot up for election insignificant pawns in the bigger scheme of things ?
Yet it's ok for you to call Russell Brand a "daft twat"? It would be interesting to hear your definition of "hypocrite". Along with all the personal insults you have freely thrown around on this thread your attempt to influence people on this forum had backfired spectacularly .
Well what else to call them? Afterall they and the nasty party are responsible for what is happening in my signature. That has led to suicides, and the victimisation of disabled people, and if a company did that they would guilty of breaching the Equality Act 2010, not that Con-Dem worried about the law!
Yes lets see DLA cut for disabled people Bedroom tax introduced Sure Start abandoned Facing higher tuition fees So you backing the whores, and in effect backing the scum conservatives as the whores leach off the scum, has lead to suffering, increased debt, austerity that has been proved doesn't work, and you call me a hypocrite! Well I call you incredibly naive, and like the conservatives are not living in the real world. I prefer even to give the national parties a chance rather than having 5 years more of these people who think its okay for big business to flout tax dodgers in big business, and to bail out banks for hundreds of billions, and one of those banks is still losing billions a year.
Not really. As I never hoped to influence the likes of you, Phillip/Dai and Jager. There will be plenty of people reading and not commenting. Some of them undecided voters. These people will have read reasoned arguments versus...you've helped me enormously to make my point, thank-you. I called Russell Brand a "daft twat" having made reasoned arguments regarding policy. If you read back you will see that the other side went for personal attacks and slandering the Lib Dems from the off. There was very little discussion of policy and very little logic e.g. Phillip's nonsense. He calls the Tories scum. It would be very easy for me to refer to Labour as "scum" every time I mention them given that they are ultimately responsible for every cut and for lying to this country in order to take us to war in Iraq (as a direct consequence of the power vacuum in Iraq we have religious extremists murdering people in their thousands). I opted to debate the decisions and the policy however, as labelling people "scum" and "whores" for having the cheek to govern this country is easy, lazy and the politics of hate. I still think Russell Brand is a daft twat and I see nothing wrong with expressing that view (Did any of you defend Nick Clegg from such personal abuse?). Ed Milliband thinks so too (if you actually listen to the interview), Milliband rubbishes the basis of Brand's whole argument in the first few minutes.....the only way you get change is by engaging with politics, by voting, by standing, by campaigning and this capitalist system and democracy that everyone mocks is responsible for making everybody's life in this country considerably more comfortable than it would otherwise be.....is responsible for so much progress. ....but if you all like you can follow the likes of Russell Brand or join the Penclawdd militia. It all sounds ignorant and childish to me though.
I live in the real World. Your use of the word "suffering" indicates you do not. People in this country aren't suffering, they're having to consume slightly less....given that we are one of the nations that consumes the most per head it is hard to see this as such a hardship. Take the bedroom tax for example. An ill conceived, badly executed Tory policy which doesn't bring in much money and just creates bad feeling. Yet I know somebody with a mental health condition who has their rent paid for them, who lives in a nice part of town, in a nicer flat than I could ever afford when I started working...she has had her rent paid for 15 or so years...she has an extra bedroom, she doesn't need it (it's used as a store room for shopping)....I paid £200 or so less amonth for my first 1 bedroom flat in Mount Pleasant. Do we need to pay so much extra so that she can live in a nicer part of town with an extra bedroom? Is it fair that if she wants to continue to live in a nicer part of town with an extra bedroom that she spends a little less on shopping at M&S and a little more on tax? I think so. I know so. As I live in the real world. Was it badly executed and were people caught up in it that shouldn't have been? Absolutely. ...but if Labour had been governing they would have had to make difficult decisions to save money too. Living in a fantasy world is not an option. How about Sure Start. Lib Dem Councils closed satellite centres that only offered limited services such as "messy play". Not the Sure Start centres (which offer essential services like childcare and parenting advice as well as play sessions and more luxurious fare like baby yoga and even aromatherapy). They streamlined the services offered at the Sure Start centres under their control. Here's a link to a Channel 4 article attempting to criticise the Lib Dems on Sure Start for merely trying to save money and concentrate resources on the essential services by dropping some of the more frivolous stuff; http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/lib-dems-sure-start-promise-ends-in-tears/6057 Higher Tuition Fees. People didn't vote Liberal Democrat. The red and the blue team were both proposing higher tuition fees, the Universities wanted to charge higher tuition fees (they needed the funding), an independent review recommended higher tuition fees...the Lib Dems secured a deal which meant the average student pays less money. The best that could be done in the circumstances. I'm out of time so the DLA will have to wait for now. I'll just leave everybody with these questions... Does that sound like suffering to you? How would the Labour Party have cut down on spending without somebody somewhere losing out?
