OK, A Vagabond (if that is in fact your real name), here's a little lesson for you...
Government = Public Sector, can save money by cutting public services
Banking = Private Sector, can pay bonuses, within the laws of the country, as they see fit.


If you want information on all the talk over "the future of banking", this report has just been released : www.cityam.com/news-and-analysis/sack-unethical-bankers-says-commission

And as for bankers being solely to blame for the current "hole", I think you are scapegoating an industry rather than understanding the complex inter-relationship between banks, bankers, bonuses, joe-public-who-wants-a-new-car, the ratings agencies, the government, the regulators and the stock market investors. But that's another story.
( The Teviot Moose major 5th., Mon 14 Jun 2010, 11:57, 3 replies)

See also:
the general public (particularly although by no means solely the US) failing to understand entirely that the Deepwater Horizon oil spill is, fundamentally, their fault and responsibility. It's OK though, because we can blame nasty BP.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:03, closed)

Whilst I agree that our 'addiction' to oil, our greed and general overconsumption
and demands for cheaper petrol did contribute to the problems in the Gulf, BP ignored safety procedures, warnings from their own workers etc, and put profits before safety. Unfortunately we can't sue the human race for contributory negligence, and sadly BP were negligent in the eyes of the law.

They have to pay. They do have the money. It's pretty much tough shit for them.

Perhaps though, this incident will bring the 'drill baby, drill' element to their senses - but I rather suspect it wont. They are already blaming environmentalists for not letting them drill in shallower waters.
( Wicca'd Witch needs ideas for a new sig on..., Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:10, closed)

Horseshit.
While I have to be fairly careful as I have a specific edict from my ultimate boss that no-one from my group is allowed to discuss this in public locations* on pain of disciplinary action, BP didn't ignore anything, and I very strongly suspect that the US is about to discover to its cost that BP were not in the slightest bit negligent in the eyes of the law. US regulations for deepwater drilling are weak, Obama knows that, or be wouldn't be tubthumping like an enormous cock.

In any case, it's not a BP rig. Or BP regulations. Or BP workforce. Or BP work practices. But that's OK, BP are nasty bit multinational, so let's blame them.

*poorly phrased, it's the press we are prohibited from talking to, but you know what I mean
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:19, closed)

Interesting. I've heard differently, both from environmentalists and BP employees - but then I think sources on both sides are very biased.
Information that is completely independent is pretty much impossible to find. I'll wait to see what happens and bear your comments in mind.
( Wicca'd Witch needs ideas for a new sig on..., Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:21, closed)

I heard from a deep drilling oil expert on radio 4 that from what we know it looks likely that this could never have happened in the UK because our regulations are much tougher.
Plus. I'd deep drill you any day lovely and you wouldn't be gushing oil etc.
( TFD is sporting this season's finest necropants, Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:25, closed)

That's exactly it.
UK/EU deepwater drilling requires specifically several extra *mumblemumbleshouldn'ttalkaboutthis* and, yeah, the same rig blowout wouldn't have resulted in a leak here.

But we are very, very cautious about deepwater drilling here. It's very very very high risk and the only reason the US do it is because of their insatiable desire for a self-sustaining oil supply so they are never at the mercy of the middle east.

You could argue that BP should have forced the drilling company to meet UK regs rather than US ones, but the company would have refused and someone else other than BP would overseen the operation. Maybe that's a bit morally grey, but it's not breaking regulations.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:32, closed)

As I said, I'd love for this to have a knock on effect and make the US take environmental issues seriously, but it wont.
They'll just drill in protected areas because it's 'safer'. Then complain when their eco system is utterly fucked.
( Wicca'd Witch needs ideas for a new sig on..., Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:48, closed)

I think it's important to bear in mind the difference between what's morally right and legally right.
BP will have to bear the cost of the clean up. As the company overseeing the operation it is their obligation. They will also compensate, because the cost to them is tiny compared to the PR loss of not doing it. But (to the best of my knowledge) they didn't break US deepwater drilling regs so they can't possibly be charged with any negligence. You will always get bitter ex-employees saying they did of course. And maybe they did, but all the info I've seen suggests not. And yes, both sides are very biased.

But I think if there really was a chance of a succesful prosecuation, Obama wouldn't be shouting so loudly. And really, on the kilospoons irony scale, the US government should take a fucking big look into it's own house and think long and hard about how hard they fought to get Union Carbide off the hook over Bhopal, because, "hey, it's only dirty ragheads, right?"
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:28, closed)

This last bit x100000

( TFD is sporting this season's finest necropants, Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:34, closed)

Thirded.
I have been saying this.
( Wicca'd Witch needs ideas for a new sig on..., Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:36, closed)

8,000 people died at Bhopal.
eight thousand. After all these years the families recieved compensation of about £900 each, and no US employee has ever gone to trial, and it was widely accepted as negligence. Deepwater horizon is a tragedy, but it needs to be put in perspective.

(my favourite perspective stat is that Exxon Valdise killed, at best estimates, 250,000 birds. That's the same number that are killed by cats in the UK every couple of days)
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:38, closed)

To put it into perspective
More oil is spilled every year in Nigeria than has been lost in the Mexican gulf - www.theroot.com/buzz/nigeria-s-agony-dwarfs-gulf-oil-spill

but no-one gives a fuck because, well, it's Nigeria
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Mon 14 Jun 2010, 14:16, closed)

that very much, too.
that would have been my next rant, but hey, one's enough for a monday.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 14 Jun 2010, 17:18, closed)

pffffffffffffft... "Hole"

( Edd: The Unfunny Try-Hard Edgelord, Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:04, closed)

Yes - I was christened A Vagabond - in the same way you were The Teviot Moose.
I don't see how the banking industry has got out of this unscathed. Oh - that's right - because they're able to pay off the politicians.

How come we're not being paid the fee for the breach of overdraft fee for those banks that got privatised? I mean - if I breach my overdraft the government doesn't bail me out, I have to pay a fee.

How come there's one rule for them, and another for the rest of us?

Oh - that's right - because bankers are rich enough to pay off the politicians.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:06, closed)

that would be because you agreed to those overdraft conditions when you opened the account.
In any case, the two things are hardly comparable. Unless you are suggesting you want to have your overdraft reduced by selling shares in yourself?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:10, closed)

Well, yes. So, erm ... how come the banks don't have to pay overdraft fees to us since we've had to bail them out?
Oh yes. Because those conditions don't apply to the banks.

Because, er ... because the bankers are rich enough to pay off the politicians.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:14, closed)

They don't have to pay overdraft fees because it's not an overdraft.
Or anything even vaguely like an overdraft. Do pay attention, and take off the tinfoil hat, there's a good chap.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:20, closed)

Really? Only it seems to me that they didn't have the money to pay off the debts they'd created, so the government paid them off ...
using the taxpayers' money ...
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:23, closed)

Yeah, and now we own or part own them.
If they paid us overdraft charges it would be idiotic. Like paying them to ourselves.
( TFD is sporting this season's finest necropants, Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:27, closed)

fuuny that. so - how do i go about selling my shares?
oh - oh I can't. Because I don't really own or part-own them at all.

But I'll be paying for them, mind.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:28, closed)

They're held on your behalf by a representative that you elected.
You don't need me to explain democracy to you right?
( TFD is sporting this season's finest necropants, Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:31, closed)

No, not at all.
So ... how come I don't get a share of their profits, then?

Oh yes. Silly me. The profits are privatised. It's the debt that's nationalised.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:33, closed)

The government gets a share of the profits - they get a dividend on the preference shares they own.
£600Million per year - as stated above. In fact, they get this even if the bank makes a loss.
( The Teviot Moose major 5th., Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:35, closed)

Just like any shareholder we will make our money when we choose to sell our shares.
This will most probably be at a substantial profit and the money from that does go to you. Both the cost and the profit are nationalised.
( TFD is sporting this season's finest necropants, Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:36, closed)

You elect a government who's policy is to sell the government's holding in the banks.
citywire.co.uk/money/election-2010-tories-plan-to-sell-lloyds-and-rbs-shares-next-year/a393188
( The Teviot Moose major 5th., Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:33, closed)

No...
The debts still exist, the government did not pay them off, they took an investment in the bank(s) to ensure that they had the liquidity to maintain payments on these debts whilst they were restructured, and to give the market back the confidence to lend the banks money at less dislocated rates.

Remember, all that money that the government has put in is either a) due to be paid back, b) pays a significant dividend (see above) or c) can be sold by the government to the private sector at any time on the open market. Potentially for a huge profit - if the banks become successful again.
( The Teviot Moose major 5th., Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:33, closed)

That would be the politicians profiting from it, then.
Oh yes.

What was it I was saying about the bankers paying off politicians?

Silly me!
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:36, closed)

Do you think that the government's holdings in RBS and Lloyds are actually owned by your MP?
They are owned by the State. The UK Treasury - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Financial_Investments_Limited

In fact, if you're so inclined, you can get a job with them : www.ukfi.co.uk/job-opportunities/

Edit : If you're interested, the price at which the government make a profit on their investments are 63.2p per share in Lloyds, and 49.9p per share in RBS. Both banks have been over this price in the past year.
( The Teviot Moose major 5th., Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:43, closed)

The government haven't bailed out the banks
They've bought some shares. If you get too deep into your overdraft, you can sell some I'd your stuff too.
(Vlad the Inhaler forgot his password, Wed 16 Jun 2010, 14:59, closed)

It's really not that simple. I'm a socialist , and even I can see that.
Banking reform will take time, and it will happen. You can't simply barge in and start making demands instantly, it will fuck up.

Blaming the banks is easy. Sorting the mess out isn't.
( Wicca'd Witch needs ideas for a new sig on..., Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:12, closed)

Oh I absolutely agree that sorting the mess out will take ages.
It's just that it seems from here that an awful lot of people have got away with not only cocking it all up and not having to either clear up the mess or pay for it, but they've actually made money and managed to actively avoid any penalties whatsoever.

Not that I'm not a believer in screwing over the little people if one can, mind - I'm just enjoying the opportunity to whine self-righteously. If I were a banker I wouldn't be saying all this pretentious, justification bullshit about losing good people if you fine them, I'd simply be wiping my arse on £50 notes and flicking the V sign to the povvers outside the gates of my fucking enormous mansion.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:17, closed)

The banking industry has not got off "unscathed".
If you consider the above link, there will be fundamental changes to banking in this country.

Comparing your overdraft fee to the bailout is utterly facile. However, to counter, the government do actually get a fee from RBS/Lloyds, through the fact that they own preference shares paying 12% - £600,000,000 per year in interest.

The alternative, was to let RBS and HBOS go bankrupt, as happened to Lehman Brothers. Whilst in a purely capatilist, no-safety-net world, this would have been the correct thing to do, there were/are fundamental concerns that letting a number of large retail banks fail, would have created a financial crisis even worse than the one we now face.
( The Teviot Moose major 5th., Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:15, closed)

Hahahahahahaha
Yeah.

Oh well, then. Glad that no one was hurt, and that no one was responsible in the end - it was actually the taxpayer's fault all along.

This is why I want to go into arms-dealing. If anyone criticises you, you simply say "Guns don't kill people, rappers do."

FFS. All involved in the banking industry need to be put up against the wall and shot. It would make great television for a start.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:24, closed)

I'm not saying no-one was hurt.
I'm not saying it was the taxpayer's fault.

How did you read that into my post?
( The Teviot Moose major 5th., Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:28, closed)

I managed it when you wrote
"I think you are scapegoating an industry rather than understanding the complex inter-relationship between banks, bankers, bonuses, joe-public-who-wants-a-new-car ... "

It was my bloody silly fault for needing an overdraft. I do accept that. I do. And I'd like to publically apologise for the global mess I've caused.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:30, closed)

"Needing" an overdraft?
It's the summation of a lot of people that "needed" a new car/house/holiday/speedboat, that led to the demand that fueled this crisis. The banks lent to more people than they should have done. The ratings agencies mis-rated alot of securitisations based on these loans, the regulator did not stop this, the government encouraged it - "BRITAIN IS BOOMING". There were alot of parties at fault.
( The Teviot Moose major 5th., Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:38, closed)

Yes. Our boiler packed up within ten minutes of moving in.
My own fault, really - I should have saved some to prepare for such a situation.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:53, closed)

Good to see you learned from your mistake.
If you cannot afford to pay for a new boiler either a) save until you can, or b) get insurance. We have insurance on our boiler - since we felt that we'd rather that, than have to pay out a lump sum in the event it blows up. That's what insurance is for
( The Teviot Moose major 5th., Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:56, closed)

Hahahahaha

( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:59, closed)

Whilst I agree with your sentiment.
If the banks hadn't been bailed out it would have been a disaster for plenty of businesses, people, everyone really. It's also likely that we will receive a good return on our investment into the banks.

I would like to see the government on behalf of taxpayers insist on better lending, lower bonuses in the banks that are effectively capitalised but we have to face that we have no more power than any other shareholders. We can't force them to cut pay in the same way that we can in genuine government agencies.

On a slightly separate note, are you involved in The Robin Hood Tax? If not, get involved.
( TFD is sporting this season's finest necropants, Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:18, closed)

What she said.
With added emphasis on the Robin Hood Tax.
( Wicca'd Witch needs ideas for a new sig on..., Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:22, closed)

OK well I've just looked up the Robin Hood Tax
I agree with it, but the problem is that it will end up being paid by the customers anyway, because the banks will simply add it to their charges, and then add an extortionate "administration" fee for doing so, because they just don't have enough money already.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:27, closed)

... and your suggestion of cutting pay, bonuses etc wouldn't?
The Robin Hood tax is a transaction tax but only between financial institutions. It wouldn't apply to retail banking transactions.
( TFD is sporting this season's finest necropants, Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:29, closed)

I think they'd have a far harder job claiming the extra fees to prop up the ridiculous bonuses that are paid out
But yes, I agree. We'll pay for it in the end anyway. We'll all pay.

And meanwhile, certain individuals will still get into positions where they're able to run up £16,000 bar bills on the proceeds.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:32, closed)

I'd wager that you earn vastly more than most people on this planet.
To them your 2 pints down the pub on a Friday equate to a week's wages. That's also unfair. Morally I agree that living in such an unequal world is horrible, wrong etc but there are lots of people who earn a great deal of money.

Disassembling what is great sweeping moral conviction from what pragmatically can and should happen is very tricky and can provide us with virtually no easy answers.
( TFD is sporting this season's finest necropants, Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:42, closed)

I cannot tell you how aroused I am right now.

( Wicca'd Witch needs ideas for a new sig on..., Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:56, closed)

Yes - hence my agreement that were I a banker I'd be wiping my arse on £50 notes and flicking the Vs at the poor.
It's just that the money I earn is fair and square, and if I lose the company a shedload of money then I'll get fired. Doesn't seem to have happened with the bankers. If anything, the likes of Fred Goodwin have actually done rather well out of overseeing the largest losses in financial history.

But hey. If I was in that position I would have bought my own TV channel specifically for publically laughing at the nation from my multi-million dollar secret hideaway.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:56, closed)

And the majority of the bankers that made the mistakes got fired.
Believe me, the inside of an "investment bank" looks very different today than it did 5 years ago.
( The Teviot Moose major 5th., Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:59, closed)

I don't think I understand at all then.
You can't get upset at bankers being rich cunts and then agree that in their position you'd be the same or worse. You rich cunt. I thought you were idealistic and venting but it turns out you're just jealous and whining.
( TFD is sporting this season's finest necropants, Mon 14 Jun 2010, 13:04, closed)

Do try to keep up, lass:
www.b3ta.com/questions/badmanagement/post754262
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Mon 14 Jun 2010, 13:06, closed)

So you are a cunt then.

( TFD is sporting this season's finest necropants, Wed 16 Jun 2010, 0:18, closed)

In other words, you like whining but you can't be arsed to do anything constructive.
You're a tit.
( Wicca'd Witch needs ideas for a new sig on..., Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:55, closed)

Name me someone on the planet that isn't a tit.
And doesn't whine about things while not doing anything constructive.

Oh - oh you can't.

I can't do anything constructive about the banking situation other than pay tax, and everyone reserves the right to whining about having to pay tax.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Mon 14 Jun 2010, 12:58, closed)

You've been given a way to do something constructive. To work towards something better.
It's easy to get involved. A lot of people already are.

Stop being so bloody pathetic. You look like a cock.
( Wicca'd Witch needs ideas for a new sig on..., Mon 14 Jun 2010, 13:06, closed)

Your mother looks like a cock.
Chill, baby. It's only opinionsontheinternetslol

But do carry on telling me I'm pathetic.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Mon 14 Jun 2010, 13:08, closed)

I'm particularly impressed by the erudition and wit of this reply :
207.44.242.20/questions/badmanagement/post754328
( The Teviot Moose major 5th., Mon 14 Jun 2010, 13:09, closed)

Me
I'm lovely.
(sabre-tooth monkey, Mon 14 Jun 2010, 13:22, closed)