Banks

[Lurker]

I know that there’s some knowledgeable folks here…….
I was just thinking, when we had the financial crash a few years ago, did all the banks eventually repay the taxpayer all the money that was given to them.

 

[AJB Temple]

No, but it's a complex question.

Government still owns 48% of Natwest (ex RBS group). However there are various salient points: government could sell shares - it's a matter of pricing and not causing panic. In addition it is very hard to know what the cost of propping up some banks was. Their collapse would have had huge economic consequences as chain reaction across corporate loans, mortgages, pension funds, savings etc would have occurred and the losses from that and government costs to sort it out, are hard to weigh against the cost of supporting a bank (and by implication most of its customers too). You can do these sums in multitudinous ways, but there is no proof as we will never really know what would otherwise have happened.

 

[Lurker]

Thank you.
What set me wondering was there were fossil fuel protesters outside Barclay bank in town this morning.

 

[AJB Temple]

We have just stop oil, anti mining lobby, extinction rebellion, climate rebellion, and various flavours of identity rights. During the remembrance day outdoor service yesterday, we were treated to a small "stop oil" demonstration. Later on I watched them leave Waitrose car park. In three diesel cars. :?

No idea why Barclays should be singled out.

 

[Lurker]

We have just stop oil, anti mining lobby, extinction rebellion, climate rebellion, and various flavours of identity rights. During the remembrance day outdoor service yesterday, we were treated to a small "stop oil" demonstration. Later on I watched them leave Waitrose car park. In three diesel cars. :?

No idea why Barclays should be singled out.

I suggested to the protesters that all their clothing and the big banner were made from petrochemicals were a bit hypocritical. Apparently Barclay have invested squillions in fossil fuels.

 

[Blackswanwood]

No idea why Barclays should be singled out.

Barclays are a major financier of oil extraction in the Arctic. They’ve been called out over the past couple of years by several reports for having a lending policy that continues to expand fossil fuel extraction.

I’m just explaining why they are targeted as opposed to expressing an opinion … although I’m in the camp of believing oil extraction and the Arctic aren’t a good combination.

 

[AJB Temple]

It is a bit daft though. Barclays are in the business of lending money - not doing oil extraction. This argument can be extended with numerous tentacles. Banks should simply keep quiet about who they lend to and make that (discretion) a condition of the loan.

Banks should, by and large not be making moral judgements. Otherwise this extends to no loans to finance petrol cars, no travel finance, no finance for business that sell petrol or oil, no finance for shops that sell petrol lawnmowers, no loans for shops that sell cigarettes.....and on and on.

 

[Blackswanwood]

I don’t agree Adrian.

Shareholders (existing and potential) want and need to know how their capital is being used. Equally companies receiving credit need to be clear with their shareholders (existing and potential) who is behind it.

If Barclays (or any other bank)think what they are doing is right they need to be prepared to stand up and say so in the court of public opinion.

 

[Mike G]

I'm with you on this, Robert. We live in an age dominated by enormous multi-national companies, many of which have turnovers greater than many of the countries on the planet. We have little enough control over them anyway, and allowing them to hide their actions doesn't serve the greater good, in my view. Particularly because the banks have the government as their ultimate guarantor (too big to fail, and all that), and the government are simply our representative, I don't think there is a good case for banks operating solely in their own short term interests whilst ignoring the wishes of the general populace.

 

[AJB Temple]

No one ever changed their mind through internet argument, so I shall desist.

Must admit there are elements I agree with. In my case I deplore the way we have damaged our industrial heritage by outsourcing so much to the communist dictatorship of China to save a few bob. And allowed the High Street to be killed by Amazon which pays trivial UK taxes. And allowed local butchers, bakers and fishmongers (and local slaughterhouses for that matter) to be steamrollered by supermarkets. Where does it end?

 

[Mike G]

And I agree with that 100% too, Adrian, with the caveat that some part of the motivation for the move of manufacturing to China was to avoid our pollution and emission targets etc. We have effectively outsourced our emissions.

 

[RogerS]

While we are on the subject of banks and finance companies, I flag this latest underhand and downright sneaky way that the conniving bastards are trying to trick people into going into heavy duty interest on their credit cards.

For example, Lloyds and New Day are now sending out emails several days before any card payment is due saying "You need to pay £6.50 (whatever) by Nov 21st" for example. Omitting to say that "this is the minimum payment".

Yes, banks are there to screw you ...ooops, sorry, make money...and we should all be on top of our finances. But given where a lot of people are, pressures, interruptions, the daily grind then it's all too easy for them to simply just pay that £6.50.

Other finance companies....Amex, for example...will send an email saying "£x as a minimum payment, £y to pay off your statement balance etc....which will cause folk to think for a moment and which I would suggest is a damn sight more ethical than Lloyds and NewDay.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

... And allowed local butchers, bakers and fishmongers (and local slaughterhouses for that matter) to be steamrollered by supermarkets.

People didn't allow it, they encouraged it.

 

[AndyP]

Should we, society, take some of the blame? So many of us want the cheapest of everything. Obviously if the supermarkets had not offered society the choice of cheaper food there would be more local shops. What came first the demand for cheaper food or the supply?

The same can be said for furniture makers or course, the rise of IKEA, Oak Furniture Land et al. So few, it seems, are prepared to save but want instant solutions to their desires

Two many people perhaps know the cost of everything but the value of nothing

 

[RogerS]

Should we, society, take some of the blame? So many of us want the cheapest of everything. Obviously if the supermarkets had not offered society the choice of cheaper food there would be more local shops. What came first the demand for cheaper food or the supply?

The same can be said for furniture makers or course, the rise of IKEA, Oak Furniture Land et al. So few, it seems, are prepared to save but want instant solutions to their desires

Two many people perhaps know the cost of everything but the value of nothing

:text-goodpost:

 

[Artiglio]

Human nature is the problem, we all want more for less, in return others provide the “more” and also create and promote things we did’nt know we wanted but now do. That we allow ourselves to be socaffected by a tiny number of protesters is just a way of government steering the direction of travel.

The vast majority of the population have little interest in environmental issues , being more interested in their own lives and wants.

Personally , climate change yes, being predominantly a man made issue i’m not so sure. Moving away from the use of fossil fuels most certainly a good thing, it’s a finite resource that has other uses than energy. But trying to move at the pace we are as a nation is to my mind pure folly. It was only in 2006 that we sold Westinghouse and in a stroke turned ourselves from nuclear experts to also rans. An act of energy policy that i just can’t see was made on any reasonable argument, the move away from fossil fuels must certainly have been forseeable then.

 

[Woodbloke]

Should we, society, take some of the blame? So many of us want the cheapest of everything. Obviously if the supermarkets had not offered society the choice of cheaper food there would be more local shops. What came first the demand for cheaper food or the supply?

The same can be said for furniture makers or course, the rise of IKEA, Oak Furniture Land et al. So few, it seems, are prepared to save but want instant solutions to their desires

Two many people perhaps know the cost of everything but the value of nothing

And here... :text-goodpost: :text-+1:

That again is hooman nature in that we're always looking for 'the deal' and where to purchase our hearts desire at the cheapest possible price, which is ultimately why we've slept walked into the PRC's gentle embrace over the last two or three decades. We're now paying the price and will pay a much heavier price in the years to come. Are you aware that the Chinese navy is now larger than that of the USA? - Rob

 

[AndyP]

Size is not everything Rob as events elsewhere in the world have shown.

 

[Woodbloke]

Size is not everything Rob as events elsewhere in the world have shown.

True again Andy, but Tobias Elwood (MP) is currently in Ukraine and mentioned on CH4 news last night that the Chinese (along with everybody else) have been watching the US...sorry, Russia's lamentable performance and will have been taking note; whilst they're not ready to make a move in the South China Sea at the moment, they will be in five to ten years - Rob

 

[Lurker]

China’s game is to make the rest of the world so dependent on it, we will easily succumb to their will.
Putins game was similar via his gas dominance in Europe. I think he saw his opportunity when the German greens forced the decimation of their nuclear power.
Much like our’s did in the ‘80s.
Even now the U.K. government hasn’t learned it’s lesson as our major chip factory is owned by the Chinese, why hasn’t that been “rescued” like the banks were?

 

[Phil Pascoe]

... An act of energy policy that i just can’t see was made on any reasonable argument, the move away from fossil fuels must certainly have been forseeable then.

Brings to mind the J-C Juncker quote -
"We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it.”

 

[Artiglio]

... An act of energy policy that i just can’t see was made on any reasonable argument, the move away from fossil fuels must certainly have been forseeable then.

Brings to mind the J-C Juncker quote -
"We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it.”

Never heard that before , very apt. But rather exposes the lack of ability our politicians/leaders have in persuading us that they know what they are doing. However given some of the decisions they make it’s hardly a suprise we don’t like them.

 

[AJB Temple]

Yes, that's a good quote, and true. The media and court of twitter is very bad for us, as politicians are judged daily. Forced to play to this ridiculous gallery they make short term decisions as they are chucked out of their job every five years and may or may not be rehired. So what do we expect from this degree of perpetual insecurity and public judgement. Our system of catcalling trivial opposition to every minor infraction also needs changing, as it feeds this daily media frenzy for something to criticise.

Great Britain is a small ship on a stormy sea and we have drifted quite some way of course over the past few years.

 

[spb]

Brings to mind the J-C Juncker quote -
"We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it.”

Perhaps a part of the answer is aggressive term limits for elected officials at all levels - if they know they're not getting re-elected either way, maybe they'll be a little more free to do what needs to be done?

 

[AJB Temple]

I think the big issue with that Stephen, is it makes politics into a short term career interlude. It is unlikely to be appealing to anyone who has the opportunity to build a stable career. It might appeal to those nearing retirement, or like Sunak, of independent means.

Personally I think the constant media commentary and speculation, coupled with very blame orientated trivial opposition about things that don't matter all that much, just stops politicians being at all bold. The reality anyway is that politicians can do very little about world economic pressures, and the Bank of England can ignore government policy and has a weak person at the helm, and really only one very blunt instrument (interest rates). It cannot control the behaviour of the bond and gilt markets except by printing money to intervene at great cost. Is it a good idea really for the Bank of England to be independent?

Of course, I wish I knew the answer. Liz Truss ably showed that politicians can rapidly make things a great deal worse but have little capacity for making them better.

 

[spb]

It would certainly be a big change that would upend the political system as we know it. Given how things have been going lately, though (the world over; I'm not talking just about the UK here) I'm not sure whether that'd be entirely a bad thing. An interesting thought experiment either way.