EU is good for trade. Services and labour as well as goods. Our gas mostly comes from EU now as an example.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Is it time for the United Kingdom to re-write the Bill of Rights Act?
Poll
Should the UK create a new "Bill of Rights Act"?
| Yes | 16% | 16% - 1 | ||||
| No | 16% | 16% - 1 | ||||
| Who cares! | 66% | 66% - 4 | ||||
| Total: 6 | ||||||
You can be in the customs union without being in the political union. but the french will make sure you guys will have a tough time with everything, just like during the 60s and 70sCheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
EU is good for trade. Services and labour as well as goods. Our gas mostly comes from EU now as an example.
Not bank bailouts. For big banks.Jay wrote:
Economies have crashed thousands of times throughout history. Bailouts are a 20th century invention designed to cushion the blow for rich investors. They don't do anything else.
In other instances, that is a fair point, but it simply doesn't apply with big banks.
They do, yes. Deposits are insured. Any assets the bank possesses would be bought by other banks at auction. There's no reason to prop up banks. One collapses, two more take its place. Life goes on. Instead, we went the complete opposite route and allowed the big banks to consolidate even further with taxpayer money.Bertster7 wrote:
Not bank bailouts. For big banks.Jay wrote:
Economies have crashed thousands of times throughout history. Bailouts are a 20th century invention designed to cushion the blow for rich investors. They don't do anything else.
In other instances, that is a fair point, but it simply doesn't apply with big banks.
Last edited by Jay (2012-03-22 14:09:32)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Because banking crises aren't like the worst thing that could happen to a country's economy
And our banking problems in 08 weren't like systematic or anything
The credit market lock up in 08 would have totally not have happened if multiple banks blown up
Uh huh
And our banking problems in 08 weren't like systematic or anything
The credit market lock up in 08 would have totally not have happened if multiple banks blown up
Uh huh
yeah since banks are so dangerous let the government run it loooooooooool!Macbeth wrote:
Because banking crises aren't like the worst thing that could happen to a country's economy
And our banking problems in 08 weren't like systematic or anything
The credit market lock up in 08 would have totally not have happened if multiple banks blown up
Uh huh
???
Because I said the government should run banks and totally did not make an argument for making sure banks don't implode
Because I said the government should run banks and totally did not make an argument for making sure banks don't implode
you do realize the banks imploded due to lack of fractional reserve banking policies and a very low interest rate right? its more than hur dur banks are dumb dickheads. if you want to point fingers you're better off pointing it at the fed and their interest rates.Macbeth wrote:
???
Because I said the government should run banks and totally did not make an argument for making sure banks don't implode
I am not saying banks are bad, nor am I blaming them for anything. I am also not arguing about why banks implode. Chill with the strawman because I am not going to debate you on something I never said.
I am just against the idea that we should have let the banking system fall apart in '08.
I am just against the idea that we should have let the banking system fall apart in '08.
why not? people's savings under 250k are federally insured, some other banking groups will take their place.Macbeth wrote:
I am not saying banks are bad, nor am I blaming them for anything. I am also not arguing about why banks implode. Chill with the strawman because I am not going to debate you on something I never said.
I am just against the idea that we should have let the banking system fall apart in '08.
I will say it again- we had more than a little banking problem in '08. It was more than one bank going under. Several big ones blew up and other big ones were on the verge.
In '08 the credit markets completely locked up and jobs started being lost all over the place. If Kmar ever gets back you can ask him about since he works in real estate. You couldn't get a loan for anything at the time. It was really bad even though we prevented a bunch of big banks from crashing. How do you think the economy would have looked if we let a bunch more crash?
In '08 the credit markets completely locked up and jobs started being lost all over the place. If Kmar ever gets back you can ask him about since he works in real estate. You couldn't get a loan for anything at the time. It was really bad even though we prevented a bunch of big banks from crashing. How do you think the economy would have looked if we let a bunch more crash?
it was more than just america too
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
thing is with the global financial system, they're all pretty much linked, especially euro and USA.FatherTed wrote:
it was more than just america too
Well, do you have a response cybarg or were you just trying to bog me down some place with strawmen?
its better to let those bank fail. the exact same problem will prop up again sooner or later down the road. its not like giving billions of dollars to "save" those banks will solve any deep rooted problems. AIG used their bail out money on bonus' and vacation spending.Macbeth wrote:
Well, do you have a response cybarg or were you just trying to bog me down some place with strawmen?
Praised the success of the austerity measures, and maintain a balanced budget, rather than spend more?
Last edited by deragoku (2012-04-12 17:10:52)
No. That's all complete bollocks.Jay wrote:
They do, yes. Deposits are insured. Any assets the bank possesses would be bought by other banks at auction. There's no reason to prop up banks. One collapses, two more take its place. Life goes on. Instead, we went the complete opposite route and allowed the big banks to consolidate even further with taxpayer money.Bertster7 wrote:
Not bank bailouts. For big banks.Jay wrote:
Economies have crashed thousands of times throughout history. Bailouts are a 20th century invention designed to cushion the blow for rich investors. They don't do anything else.
In other instances, that is a fair point, but it simply doesn't apply with big banks.
With any big financial institution failing you get a domino effect hitting all sorts of other companies. Once you get past a certain point, the cost to the economy of these knock on effects are more than the costs of bailing out the banks. Take the Lehman Bros example. The knock on effects were terrible - which is what prompted all the extra bailouts following that.
Also, who do you think insures the deposits? I don't know about the US, but in the UK it's the government and they aren't insured beyond £50000. It's not like that isn't almost an equal burden on the taxpayer. Any private insurer would bankrupt itself insuring the deposits at a major bank if they ever had to pay out anyway.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2012-04-13 13:52:10)
Federal government in the US insures deposits under 250,000 under FDIC, which was created during the great depression.Bertster7 wrote:
No. That's all complete bollocks.Jay wrote:
They do, yes. Deposits are insured. Any assets the bank possesses would be bought by other banks at auction. There's no reason to prop up banks. One collapses, two more take its place. Life goes on. Instead, we went the complete opposite route and allowed the big banks to consolidate even further with taxpayer money.Bertster7 wrote:
Not bank bailouts. For big banks.
In other instances, that is a fair point, but it simply doesn't apply with big banks.
With any big financial institution failing you get a domino effect hitting all sorts of other companies. Once you get past a certain point, the cost to the economy of these knock on effects are more than the costs of bailing out the banks. Take the Lehman Bros example. The knock on effects were terrible - which is what prompted all the extra bailouts following that.
Also, who do you think insures the deposits? I don't know about the US, but in the UK it's the government and they aren't insured beyond £50000. It's not like that isn't almost an equal burden on the taxpayer. Any private insurer would bankrupt itself insuring the deposits at a major bank if they ever had to pay out anyway.
in the UK it's the government and they aren't insured beyond £50000
Both of which are intended to cover one bank going under in a freak event, eg Barings.Federal government in the US insures deposits under 250,000 under FDIC
In the event of a total meltdown, such as we nearly had in 2008, those guarantees would mean nothing - unless martians or some other are underwriting the British and American govts.
Its all a house of cards.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
they only protected people's savings account. term deposits and other investments don't count under FDIC. not many people have over 250k in cash.
No matter, in a total collapse it all goes poof.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Is it time for the United Kingdom to re-write the Bill of Rights Act?