George Osborne
 

As far as I remember the banks were told to lend money to small buisnesses as part of the bail outs they recieved. Of course they didn't and now it seems the Chancellor is underwriting bank loans to the tune of billions. Is every government impotent when it comes to dealing with bankers

Just how much power do these banks have

Re: George Osborne
 

Obviously far to much.
The Tories brought in some new regulations in response to the fiasco under the previous govt, but they still don't appear to go anywhere near far enough.

Re: George Osborne
 

For sure they regulated some practices but they still could not get the Banks to lend to small businesses and now they are having to offer the underwriting. What will bring bankers into line. I can certainly understand this anti capital movement that it is spreading and at times i wish it war more pro active.
Tax payers money bailed out the banks and now tax payers money is going to underwrite the loans it gives out, the banks just can't lose. They are becoming despicable

Re: George Osborne
 

They always have been despicable in my book
It's just that they're becoming even more despicable than ever.

Re: George Osborne
 

When did we stop being evil commies and become the more socially acceptable anti capital movement? I must have blinked and missed it!:D

Re: George Osborne
 

Well the government has said this week it will provide the indemnity cover for first time buyers, so that's it now, housing sale problems solved.

The banks are on a win win.

Re: George Osborne
 

I too appreciate the spirit of the "anti-capitalism" movement, but I find it a bit ironic that those who are protesting against it are among the key beneficiaries of the capitalist system - wait ... hear me out.

Capitalism is the very reason things like the Internet are available to you and billions of others, otherwise you wouldn't likely have a computer, much less access to the internet.

Capitalism is the very reason why you have a mobile (or fixed) phone, a house with heating, electricity, and water. It is the reason why everything you consume is not a product of a monopolistic government social programme, but the product of a free market. We all worry about China, but we're delighted to buy their products at less than half the price of ours. We could do that, too, if we were only willing to accept less than half of what we currently earn and work twice as many hours.

Capitalism is the reason why you can even begin to afford such luxuries. Capitalism is why you enjoy the highest wages in the civilised world.

Those that are fighting the good fight against the fundamental flaws in the financial system appear to have confused the very system which affords them such luxuries with the cause of their discontent. But really, the evil isn't with the system, it's with those running it. They are two entirely different things. Why destroy the entire system? The more rational approach is the fix the flaws, and remove those responsible.

Be careful what you wish for. We could become a perfectly socialist society where everything in our lives is regulated and supplied by some government-appointed moron whose entire agenda is to ensure you don't "capitalise" on any opportunity to improve your life.... Where the gap between rich and poor becomes much more of a canyon than it is now.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just the bathwater, please.

Re: George Osborne
 

Excellent post:)

Re: George Osborne
 

I´ll second that.

Graham

Re: George Osborne
 

So when are we going to see anybody proposing to pull the plug out and get rid of the scummy bathwater, to use your analogy? Every time someone criticises bankers all I hear is Governments running scared and coming out with the same old cringing statements like "we need to keep paying them sqillions to make sure we keep the best talent in our country or they will all go somewhere else". All I can say is, if it is the best talent that has got us to the situation we are in today (globally, but starting with the US sub-prime mortgage situation, a clever wheeze thought up by just such talented people), then it's about time we let a bunch of numpties have a go, they could hardly do any worse.

The whole world seems to be being controlled by faceless people, elected by nobody, who are just financial speculators and can destroy the livelihoods and security of huge numbers of people at the click of a mouse. I find it very scary indeed, much more so than the prospect of living in a socialist society.

Re: George Osborne
 

the banks were also told to lend money to people who want to buy a home, but they still keep on tightening the screw on deposits and high percentages.
the only people who seem to borrow money for a house are buy-to-let entrepreneurs who have a dozen or so houses already.

Anyone trying to buy a house will find that the majority of people looking will be these buy-to-leters, whilst they will be lucky to see a young couple who want to buy for themselves.

the banks are up to their old tricks, paying only 0.05% to savers and charging 15% to borrrowers.

the way forward is to become a bank

Re: George Osborne
 

I'll third it.

Re: George Osborne
 

My son is just in the process of buying a flat for £65k on a fixed rate mortgage of 3.something for three years. I don't think this is beyond many peoples' reach. All house prices are not the samee as the South East.

Re: George Osborne
 

I agree with the vast majority of this post my issue is the banks holding the country and the government to ransom. Not capitalism per se. I appreciate that banks are buisnesses but if it was your buisness that had gone bust would the government be there for you in the same way that they have been for the banks.

Re: George Osborne
 

Have you ever worked for yourself? Ran a business and paid the wages out of your own pocket?