I'm not against it, but I don't think we should tell some of the Americans here. They are nice and everything, but I don't think they learn a lot about ideologies at school. I remember one who belived the congess was far left.
Socialism came to the west years ago,
When the public were forced to bail
Out the Banks )
I think most champagne socialists
Agreed with that, no rich socialist
Wanted to lose any money.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Perhaps you slept through those lessons back in the day? Using tax money to bail out banks isn't socialism, taxing them a lot or even nationalizing them is more their style. Remember it was Bush the Younger who bailed out banks first in the 2008 crisis.
Socialism came to the west years ago,
When the public were forced to bail
Out the Banks )
I think most champagne socialists
Agreed with that, no rich socialist
Wanted to lose any money.
You do make a valid point. Bailing out banks means that they can act with abandon not afforded to any other business. IMHO banks should face realistic business risks, it is the only way to avoid crisis like the subprime debacle of 2008. The fear of losing money would keep them in check. The reason this is not done, is that the price paid by the society in large when a bank fails would be too steep, paid in bankruptcies, unemployment, lost savings and retirement funds and personal tragedies in scores.
Although I have to point out, that just bailing out banks does not a socialism make. Also there is a quite large leap from socialism to communism.
And finally, the first recorded strike in the Unites States of A was in 1768 and first trade union in America was founded in 1794, so socialism has very deep roots in the US.
"I mean, she almost kills bond...with her ass."
-Mr Arlington Beech
While I agree tat banks have been treated much better than what they deserve - imo it would have been catastrophic if they‘d really failed in 2008 collectively.
Just imagine a total collapse, all your bank assets are null, people lining up and demanding their money back and so on.
What really makes me upset is that so many countries are continuously weakening the stringent measures that this will not happen again because they focus on stock markets and nothing else.
In particular the current resident in the White House practically erased out the ( far too mild) rules for the financial markets that have been set up by his predecessor.
So - as always it‘s easy to call the bailout in 2008 being socialism - but those keyboard warriors with their limited focus and intellect are just like that - as they don‘t need to carry the horrible consequences of the much more painful alternative plans.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
[IMHO banks should face realistic business risks, it is the only way to avoid crisis like the subprime debacle of 2008. The fear of losing money would keep them in check.
Sadly the reality of this is that banks are no longer willing to lend money, making it incredibly hard for anyone to get a mortgage or a business loan.
Even with the British Goverment bankrolled the Corninavirus Business Loan scheme - which effectively mean that the banks took no personal risk whatsoever - they were still unwilling to lend, until shamed into doing so by Boris Johnson and the Government.
So - as always it‘s easy to call the bailout in 2008 being socialism - but those keyboard warriors with their limited focus and intellect are just like that - as they don‘t need to carry the horrible consequences of the much more painful alternative plans.
Let's take Greece as an example: if Greece had been allowed to default back in 2009-2010, then Deutsche Bank and probably Credit Lyonnais would have also gone under. The ripple effect would have gone around the world. It would have been a major crisis on top of the subprime crisis of 2008 and German and French societies would have been hit the hardest, but Dutch, Belgian, British etc. would have taken a hit. People still question the logic of bailing out Greece, but it wasn't Greece that was being bailed out, it was the European private financial institutions, banks.
Funny thing is: the political left has also called it rampant capitalism... ) ) )
"I mean, she almost kills bond...with her ass."
-Mr Arlington Beech
Sadly the reality of this is that banks are no longer willing to lend money, making it incredibly hard for anyone to get a mortgage or a business loan.
Even with the British Goverment bankrolled the Corninavirus Business Loan scheme - which effectively mean that the banks took no personal risk whatsoever - they were still unwilling to lend, until shamed into doing so by Boris Johnson and the Government.
Banks are rational operators on the market, if the reward is less than (perceived) risks, they will hold on to the money. This is something that has been discussed here in Finland quite a lot: Should banks lend money to failing businesses. As long as banks get better return on their investment by lending their money to ECB, they will not lend it to private operators, be they businesses or citizen. If ECB would charge a negative interest on the money on ECB instruments, then banks would have a real incentive to find clients on the private market.
IMHO the government really should refrain from making business decisions on behalf of any privately operated business. Here in Finland 2 large corporations just announced of major cuts and the cabinet ministers started immediately screaming bloody murder. It's a funny thing when a lifelong leftist politician turns into an expert on corporate finance/restructuring when it suits them.
"I mean, she almost kills bond...with her ass."
-Mr Arlington Beech
I think post 962 proves my point about champagne socialists only the rich
with money to lose needed the Banks bailed out. The rest of us " The working poor "
had nothing to lose. we had no shares or savings, yet we had to take on the Debt of
the Banks.
Then again that is socialism just like capitalism the rich get richer and the poor ....
... well who cares about the poor, Except when there's an election on....... or you
want to virtue signal
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I think post 962 proves my point about champagne socialists only the rich
with money to lose needed the Banks bailed out. The rest of us " The working poor "
had nothing to lose. we had no shares or savings, yet we had to take on the Debt of
the Banks.
Then again that is socialism just like capitalism the rich get richer and the poor ....
... well who cares about the poor, Except when there's an election on....... or you
want to virtue signal
Yeah, nothing to lose except the jobs that would have been lost when the companies having funds/financing from the failing banks would have gone under.
"I mean, she almost kills bond...with her ass."
-Mr Arlington Beech
So no company has every been bought by another company when things go bad !
Wow!! I WONDER how those countries
Who Didn't bail out their banks are doing ........ why look, they seem to be doing fine
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
So no company has every been bought by another company when things go bad !
Wow!! I WONDER how those countries
Who Didn't bail out their banks are doing ........ why look, they seem to be doing fine
And which country would that be?
"I mean, she almost kills bond...with her ass."
-Mr Arlington Beech
Banks are rational operators on the market, if the reward is less than (perceived) risks, they will hold on to the money. This is something that has been discussed here in Finland quite a lot: Should banks lend money to failing businesses.
I don't think that individuals wishing to buy a house count as 'failing businesses', nor successful businesses affected by Covid19.
IMHO the government really should refrain from making business decisions on behalf of any privately operated business.
The British Government, for all its many faults, offered to provide a loan to businesses to help them through - the loan needs to be repaid in due course - a laudable approach which IMO doesn't count as making decisions on behalf of businesses. Bearing in mind the systemic collapse which would have resulted in the widespread fallout of Covid19, which affected almost every business, I'm glad they didn't take a less humane approach.
Canada's banks were in no danger of failing in 2008 because we never deregulated the mortgage industry as had been done in the United States, thanks for asking.
Since you want to see what happens when banks are allowed to fail, why don't you do a Google search on the year 1929?
or better yet talk about Coronavirus, the topic of the thread?
I wasn't the one who started the conversation about the banks
And socialism .... you might want
To do a search on your facts before
Blaming others 8-)
Now, now, don't take it personally. This has been fun and insightful, if a bit off topic. Although it is good for me to say, being in large part faulty of the off topic conversation here. So lets take it back to topic with this last parting shot on the banks and Iceland not bailing out banks: 2008–2011 Icelandic financial crisis. Do a G-search, you might find it interesting. If you can't be bothered, here's the gen:" Iceland's systemic banking collapse was the largest experienced by any country in economic history. The crisis led to a severe economic depression in 2008–2010 and significant political unrest."... "The equity in all three new banks was supplied by the Icelandic government, and amounted to 30% of Iceland's GDP. The new banks will also have to reimburse their predecessors for the net value of the transferred assets, as determined by "recognised appraisers". As of 14 November 2008, these net values were estimated as: NBI ISK558.1bn (€3.87bn), Nýi Glitnir ISK442.4bn (€2.95bn); Nýja Kaupþing ISK172.3bn (€1.14bn). The total debt of 1173 billion krónur is more than 90% of Iceland's 2007 gross domestic product." ... "The rescue operations of the central bank along with the restructuring and recapitalization of the banks increased the public debt ratio by about 20 percentage points of GDP."
So Icelandic government did not bail out the banks, this is true, but went straight to the core of socialism, and nationalized the banks. Which in the end probably (I'm guessing here, I have no competence to really make an estimation) ended up costing the
taxpayers more, than just straight bail out money.
Aand back to the topic: The scare in Finland currently is: what happens to the ice hockey season, 3 teams are already in quarantine after pre-season friendlies.
"I mean, she almost kills bond...with her ass."
-Mr Arlington Beech
This weekend I saw people wearing face masks for the first time during the Age of Corona - three of them!
This weekend was also my first visit to a town since corona started (and it was a town close to the Swedish border), so this probably goes some way towards explaining my lack of mask exposure.
I live in a small village, and everyone here is very mask-conscious when going into shops, etc. Having a car, I can't speak for how things are in busses and trains.
It's strongly expected that tomorrow Nicola Sturgeon will announce tougher measures- there are plenty guesses but we don't know what they are for sure.
I just saw the prognosis for the UK and it looks really bad. I wish everyone the best.
Here face masks are only reccomeded for travel in buses and other situations where there are crowds in small places. I guess it's because this country is less densly populated than most and the level of infections have been relatively low so far.
In Finland we have this thing called "Pesäpallo" (if not familiar, see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lTt-yVfYGM IMHO it's a stupid game, played in the boonies here in Fin, invented by Mr Tahko Pihkala, who after sucking in Baseball altered the rules to make it easier.) Anyways, Pesäpallo finals are in full swing ( 8-) ) and people in the stands pay not attention what so ever to the social distancing guidelines, nor are they wearing masks. The town Sotkamo, where they played yesterday, is "to the left from the middle of fxxxxxg nowhere". So the news cycle was not about pesäpallo, but about 'rona guidelines...
"I mean, she almost kills bond...with her ass."
-Mr Arlington Beech
I see the situation in Oslo as serious, but not out of control. All the districts of the capital have more than 20 infected per 100 000 inhabitants and threee districts have more than 100 infected per 100 000 people. But the number of new cases has dropped by a third since Thursday to Sunday from 68 to 22. Compared to many other countries and cities this is mild.
Comments
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/20/us/coronavirus-distancing-deaths.html
https://youtu.be/7hsNfNM0SvE?t=269
And the sad fact is, so many more could still be saved if not for incompetence, selfishness and ignorance.. X-(
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/snake-salford-bus-swinton-manchester-18935508?at_custom1=link&at_campaign=64&at_custom2=twitter&at_custom4=227D2B6A-F7D2-11EA-9C53-CB8F96E8478F&at_medium=custom7&at_custom3=LR+BBC+Radio+Tees
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
But ... isn't that .....................socialism?
When the public were forced to bail
Out the Banks
I think most champagne socialists
Agreed with that, no rich socialist
Wanted to lose any money.
In to National debt. Perhaps you had
A bout of somnambulism at that time
You do make a valid point. Bailing out banks means that they can act with abandon not afforded to any other business. IMHO banks should face realistic business risks, it is the only way to avoid crisis like the subprime debacle of 2008. The fear of losing money would keep them in check. The reason this is not done, is that the price paid by the society in large when a bank fails would be too steep, paid in bankruptcies, unemployment, lost savings and retirement funds and personal tragedies in scores.
Although I have to point out, that just bailing out banks does not a socialism make. Also there is a quite large leap from socialism to communism.
And finally, the first recorded strike in the Unites States of A was in 1768 and first trade union in America was founded in 1794, so socialism has very deep roots in the US.
-Mr Arlington Beech
Just imagine a total collapse, all your bank assets are null, people lining up and demanding their money back and so on.
What really makes me upset is that so many countries are continuously weakening the stringent measures that this will not happen again because they focus on stock markets and nothing else.
In particular the current resident in the White House practically erased out the ( far too mild) rules for the financial markets that have been set up by his predecessor.
So - as always it‘s easy to call the bailout in 2008 being socialism - but those keyboard warriors with their limited focus and intellect are just like that - as they don‘t need to carry the horrible consequences of the much more painful alternative plans.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Sadly the reality of this is that banks are no longer willing to lend money, making it incredibly hard for anyone to get a mortgage or a business loan.
Even with the British Goverment bankrolled the Corninavirus Business Loan scheme - which effectively mean that the banks took no personal risk whatsoever - they were still unwilling to lend, until shamed into doing so by Boris Johnson and the Government.
Let's take Greece as an example: if Greece had been allowed to default back in 2009-2010, then Deutsche Bank and probably Credit Lyonnais would have also gone under. The ripple effect would have gone around the world. It would have been a major crisis on top of the subprime crisis of 2008 and German and French societies would have been hit the hardest, but Dutch, Belgian, British etc. would have taken a hit. People still question the logic of bailing out Greece, but it wasn't Greece that was being bailed out, it was the European private financial institutions, banks.
Funny thing is: the political left has also called it rampant capitalism...
-Mr Arlington Beech
Banks are rational operators on the market, if the reward is less than (perceived) risks, they will hold on to the money. This is something that has been discussed here in Finland quite a lot: Should banks lend money to failing businesses. As long as banks get better return on their investment by lending their money to ECB, they will not lend it to private operators, be they businesses or citizen. If ECB would charge a negative interest on the money on ECB instruments, then banks would have a real incentive to find clients on the private market.
IMHO the government really should refrain from making business decisions on behalf of any privately operated business. Here in Finland 2 large corporations just announced of major cuts and the cabinet ministers started immediately screaming bloody murder. It's a funny thing when a lifelong leftist politician turns into an expert on corporate finance/restructuring when it suits them.
-Mr Arlington Beech
with money to lose needed the Banks bailed out. The rest of us " The working poor "
had nothing to lose. we had no shares or savings, yet we had to take on the Debt of
the Banks.
Then again that is socialism just like capitalism the rich get richer and the poor ....
... well who cares about the poor, Except when there's an election on....... or you
want to virtue signal
Yeah, nothing to lose except the jobs that would have been lost when the companies having funds/financing from the failing banks would have gone under.
-Mr Arlington Beech
Wow!! I WONDER how those countries
Who Didn't bail out their banks are doing ........ why look, they seem to be doing fine
And which country would that be?
-Mr Arlington Beech
I don't think that individuals wishing to buy a house count as 'failing businesses', nor successful businesses affected by Covid19.
The British Government, for all its many faults, offered to provide a loan to businesses to help them through - the loan needs to be repaid in due course - a laudable approach which IMO doesn't count as making decisions on behalf of businesses. Bearing in mind the systemic collapse which would have resulted in the widespread fallout of Covid19, which affected almost every business, I'm glad they didn't take a less humane approach.
From memory Canada, Australia and
Iceland, but I'm sure a Google search
Will reveal others.
Since you want to see what happens when banks are allowed to fail, why don't you do a Google search on the year 1929?
or better yet talk about Coronavirus, the topic of the thread?
And socialism .... you might want
To do a search on your facts before
Blaming others 8-)
Now, now, don't take it personally. This has been fun and insightful, if a bit off topic. Although it is good for me to say, being in large part faulty of the off topic conversation here. So lets take it back to topic with this last parting shot on the banks and Iceland not bailing out banks: 2008–2011 Icelandic financial crisis. Do a G-search, you might find it interesting. If you can't be bothered, here's the gen:" Iceland's systemic banking collapse was the largest experienced by any country in economic history. The crisis led to a severe economic depression in 2008–2010 and significant political unrest."... "The equity in all three new banks was supplied by the Icelandic government, and amounted to 30% of Iceland's GDP. The new banks will also have to reimburse their predecessors for the net value of the transferred assets, as determined by "recognised appraisers". As of 14 November 2008, these net values were estimated as: NBI ISK558.1bn (€3.87bn), Nýi Glitnir ISK442.4bn (€2.95bn); Nýja Kaupþing ISK172.3bn (€1.14bn). The total debt of 1173 billion krónur is more than 90% of Iceland's 2007 gross domestic product." ... "The rescue operations of the central bank along with the restructuring and recapitalization of the banks increased the public debt ratio by about 20 percentage points of GDP."
So Icelandic government did not bail out the banks, this is true, but went straight to the core of socialism, and nationalized the banks. Which in the end probably (I'm guessing here, I have no competence to really make an estimation) ended up costing the
taxpayers more, than just straight bail out money.
Aand back to the topic: The scare in Finland currently is: what happens to the ice hockey season, 3 teams are already in quarantine after pre-season friendlies.
-Mr Arlington Beech
This weekend was also my first visit to a town since corona started (and it was a town close to the Swedish border), so this probably goes some way towards explaining my lack of mask exposure.
It's strongly expected that tomorrow Nicola Sturgeon will announce tougher measures- there are plenty guesses but we don't know what they are for sure.
Here face masks are only reccomeded for travel in buses and other situations where there are crowds in small places. I guess it's because this country is less densly populated than most and the level of infections have been relatively low so far.
-Mr Arlington Beech
-Mr Arlington Beech