Tens of billions of euros from the government to bailout big banks, and the public was not able to even find out the account holders where all this recipient money would end up going. It looks like when Germany bailed out Ireland, most all that money was really going back to German banks, who held a large share of the accounts in Ireland.
Only a matter of time now before the EU implodes, and it can't come soon enough. Bad idea from the word 'go'!
Yes mate. Foreign bank bailouts are typically to those banks that owe them money. Those are the banks they have self interest in preserving. By bailing those banks out enough to repay their debts foreign governments are in fact bailing the banks creditors out. Who are their own citisens. Saves the bank though so no need to be ungrateful about it.
I’m not wasting an hour watching a video which, reading the YouTube description, is based on some flawed logic and seems to be looking to spin controversy. I particularly question their assertion that investors in bailed-out banks must have been responsible for making bad investments and the suggestion that people assume the bailouts “rescued” people in poorer European states. Bailout money won’t have gone to account holders (is that really what you meant?) and won’t have gone directly to investors and shareholders. The amount of credit in individual accounts will have remained the same but the bailouts would help prevent the banks going bust if a significant proportion was withdrawn and investors and shareholders will still have received less than they would without the crisis. In itself, I can’t see any reasonable objection to bailout money being used as it was, to allow the banks to stay in business and thus prevent all account holders and investors (including governments and pension funds) losing everything. This is separate to any objection to the reasons the banking system got in to the mess in the first place.
They might not have been responsible, but the responsibility does ultimately fall on them. They put their trust and investments into banks that made bad decisions. One of the big premises of the documentary (since you did not watch it) was that the bailouts did not rescue people in poorer states. Why not just give that money directly to the people then? When you just throw huge amounts of money into the financial system, not all of it ends up making it to the intended recipients. Here's an idea: If bailouts are so good, make the bailout money come from the account holders and investors in the banks that are being bailed out. Subtract the bailout money directly out of their accounts.
To an extent, but the financial crisis was much wider and more involved than poorly run individual businesses going bust. They weren't meant to. The documentary seems to be based on conflating the bailouts as a result of the financial crisis and more general long-running issues with how commercial banking works. That could theoretically be improved without any change to how the bailouts worked. Because the total assets at risk were many times the cost of the bailouts. I don't think you appreciate how disastrous simply allowing a whole load of international banks to disappear would be. Do you have a bank account? Does your employer? Do you have a pension? What about a mortgage or car loan? You think you and I should have just lost all of that?
You just said this: So, according to your logic, they wouldn't be losing all of the money in their account. Since you said the bailout would only be a fraction of the total assets that were at risk. And yes, they should lose it. Why should the taxpayers take the loss and not the account holders? It sounds like your basically saying "They shouldn't have to lose that". Well, somebody is going to have to lose it, an inescapable fact. Is it that you want those loses to be socialized and spread out over all of the population? That's not exactly very progressive, since you'll be shifting money away from individuals who have high incomes to individuals who had lots of money in the bank (not necessarily the same set of people, it should be pointed out). I don't see ANY reason at all why the general taxpayers should be on the hook for this. The investors and account holders should bail out themselves, if that's what they want. (Maybe they could take a collective vote)
I think you're missing a basic aspect of commercial banking. A bank doesn't actually have anything like as much actual cash as the total of all the account s invested with them, they support themselves with continuous borrowing and lending activities. That's why runs on banks have always been a problem - if everyone tries to withdraw all their money, the bank won't be able to pay out. The crisis didn't mean the banks had no money, only that the bad debts meant that they didn't have enough assets to continue with the borrowing and lending necessary to keep the business running. It is an overall flaw with the banking system, but one that has pretty much always existed. Not "they". The correct word is "we". Are you accepting that you should sacrifice all of those things so the banks could be allowed to collapse?
No it isn't. Not everyone had money in those accounts, not everyone had an equal amount of money in those accounts. Why do the banks have to collapse? Why can't the account holders be made to bail out the banks? Just automatically take the money out of their accounts. (not really "take the money out", but to be accurate it would just be voided and nullified)
HonestJoe, I'm not sure if you realize this but your whole position you're trying to argue for seems to be advocating socialism for the rich. I'm aware of how it works. That's why if you just void and nullify a portion of their accounts, they won't be able to withdraw all their money. That would avert a run on the banks. That would basically be equivalent to making them pay for their own bail out.
You're wrongly assuming that the only people supported by the banks are rich and the only tax-payers funding the bailouts are poor. Really? If you found out you were going to loose a chunk of your savings, you wouldn't rush out to withdraw it? It has been tried before but only as a last resort and with questionable results. It couldn't be a simple alternative to the bailouts.
Anyone who withdrew money from the bank within the last 6 months would also be liable for paying for the bailout. Yes, it would sort of be like a retroactive tax, but there's much more reason for them to pay for it rather than the general taxpayer. Making one person pay 1000 euros isn't any less right than making a thousand people pay 1 euro for something they shouldn't have to be paying for.
Euro... IDK, I'm in London yet computers here, to this day, still have a $ but no Yen or Euro... When different economies, like France, Germany try to be mixed up with Ireland and Portugal and Greece and gives it Poland (bless 'em, love Poland/the Polish).... France and Germany are going to want to own you. Spoiler Edit: I also couldn't find the Euro symbol in the Eurozone on keyboards out there in Western Europe, come to think of it.
See, if Europe wants it, go for it, but don't go around voting for puppets pretending you're in a an independent country, because you're not, your country I mean, not the EU superstate dream... The democratic action in the EU aren't puppets to anyone with strings that matter, but I call them puppets because I liken the EU Parliament to Punch and Judy, that's what I think of the EU Parliament. The people you vote for, the council doesn't listen to them. And that's where the president and power is, the ones who turn away, roll their eyes, and are quick to correct and silence your representative for the sake of peace in the parliament.
By the same measure, not everyone contributed to the bailouts and not everybody contributed the same amount. We don't all pay the same rate of tax and some people pay in less than they take out. In the UK for example. The government runs a deficit. Tax payer money simply wasn't available to bail out the banks. So the government borrowed the money from Chinese savers and the Middle East. Other banks desperate not to be taken over by the government, got bailed out by the stock market or foreign banks. So before we continue this argument, lets see if it is worth arguing over. How much of your money has gone to bailing out the banks and how much money do you have in said bank? For me, I pay sod all tax and my government runs a deficit, so none of my taxes went on bailouts. One of the banks that was bailed out, I owned a little stock in. The stock became junk stock and all but valueless. If a thousand people pay £1 to bail out a bank, how many of that one thousand people have deposits of over £1 in the bank? Who has less than £1 in a bank. A homeless person, that's who. And he doesn't pay tax.
But don't you think some people should be rewarded for having chosen to park their money into safer more secure banks even though they got a slightly lower rate of return?
I didn't get a slightly lower rate of return in the safer more secure banks. With one exception, Lloyds Bank, who paid very high returns, so high that when my stock became valueless, I had already made a profit. I didn't get rewarded with a lower rate of tax for those banks not needing a bail out either. And nor did they. The reward you get for choosing a safe bank, is not losing your money. That's it. Safety and security is the reward. We put our money in banks for security and safe keeping. We are not in a great position to judge the relative safety and security of banks. Which is why we had a banking crash. Not even the banks were in that good a position to judge it. We take educated guesses, hope our teachers know what's what, but accept that the bulk of them don't.
But what you're asking for is something free. You want to make interest on your money while taking absolutely no risk whatsoever. For that to happen, the taxpayers have to bail you out. Now look, I'm not saying there shouldn't be some sort of government-mandated and run insurance on all the normal bank accounts, but when a bank goes bust its depositors should take at least a small hit. And why should the taxpayers be liable for someone who had millions of Euros in the bank the same way they should for some retired person who only had a small account?
For free? They get the use of my money. That has commercial value. I could lend it to a company instead. Spend it on my own pleasures. Invest it in myself or my children. I took a big hit when the banks went bust thanks. Not a small one. 50% of all I own. Why should taxpayers be liable? Because tax payers have money in those banks too. That's why. Because retired people are taxpayers too. Because tax payers still want to use banks. You notice that taxpayers haven't suddenly stopped using banks. They still use them. If they weren't there, they wouldn't be able to. Tax payers still want cheque books and credit cards and overdrafts and mortgages. And electronic banking and internet shopping. Business loans. Student loans. Cars on hire purchase. Safe places to keep their money. All these things you are so keen to see destroyed, you use. And here is the thing, all those "tax payers" moaning about their liability, they didn't pay a penny towards the bank bailouts from their taxes. Not one. They just like to pretend they did. To feel all aggrieved and dramatic about how abused they have been. But it wasn't tax payers money that bailed the banks out. The government had already spent all of that. The government borrowed it. And the government printed it. Tax payers money had all been spent already, on bribing the tax payer to vote for the government and paying for the largesse of the tax payee. Consider it a return on the banks investment. The banks pay way more taxes than you. Why shouldn't their taxes be used to bail them out. And why shouldn't a government bail out it's biggest tax paying businesses. So that they survive to pay masses more tax. And what about the social cost. All those thousands of jobs lost. Would you see even more lost than already was? Do you not view bank employee's as people too?
Not all of them do. The ratio of income to money they keep in the bank is different for each person. Not all of them do. Some of the old people might barely have any savings and are still working late into their supposed retirement years until they die.
Like I said when more and more of the Italian banks need bailouts followed by Spains banks and so on the Brits will look back at Brexit as their best decision ever.
Those with no money pay no tax. So they aren't bailing any banks out. The more money they have the more tax they pay, the more to lose they have the more they bail themselves out.
Why should they? Earning more money doesn't automatically mean they keep more money in the bank. Or someone could have stopped working a long time ago and have a lot of money in the bank. Obviously they won't be the ones to foot the bill for their bailout in that case.
