Send Flowers to Russia, Ukraine and Worldwide with Cyber-Florist.com Fiance.com: Beautiful Russian brides
Home  |  About  |  Forum  |  User Blogs  |  Login  |  Register

	Create New Topic   My Posts   My forum buddies   Invite friends   Private messages Russian brides > Main Forum > Will Ukraine & Russia follow the multiracial Muslim experiment of Britain Author Post ragingbull Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/8/2009 12:03:12 PM   Yes, they are regulated. Look at my post on this thread. Send: 07.10.2009 14:13:01 Rag'n'Bull Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/8/2009 12:30:14 PM   Ben, There is somewhat of a difference between regulating airlines and regulating mortgage lenders: Airlines are regulated on safety, not on the product they sell to their clients, and if they get their price structuring wrong one doesn't lose one's home in the process! Kirkland Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/8/2009 3:48:40 PM   RB the lenders were not regulated properly. It’s a simple fact that a bank needs capital adequacy to be run properly and safely That means there should be enough cash in the vaults to cover debts should a percentage of investors decide to cash in. Effectively; the mortgage defaulters cashed in when they stopped re-paying their loans. The banks had lent out so much to so many that they could not repay and so they crashed. The adequacy of a bank is usually around 40%. Meaning; the bank will lend out 10000 units but only actually have 4000 in stock. This is the way the banking system works. Before this crash we had a situation where the adequacy of some banks was less than 15%. While their banks stood at an adequacy level of 15% the chairmen were earning bonuses based on performance. That is; how many loans they could sell to people who had no chance of repaying and would certainly default. This is the increased production you talk about which drove the bonuses. Do you think the investors could stop this? Do you think they even knew what was going on? These investors were getting the standard going rate for their stock..at best an average of 7% return. How much were the CEO’s getting? Those guys were getting performance payments from money that did not even exist. In effect the money to pay these salaries came straight out the investors pockets….because they lost it. We had a situation here where a bank boss who was directly involved in catastrophic decisions walked away with a 5,000,000 pension. The government stepped in and shored the bank up with taxpayers money…my money. And your asking me to relax? Rag'n'Bull Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/8/2009 4:05:08 PM   You do have a way with words Kirkland :) dcv Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/8/2009 4:31:19 PM   Nasfan said it right here.We should also warn the people about the evils of socialism.Just look at the shit the uk is now.The British Labour party has ruined the country and leading economists have stated that it is now the worst western country with the largest amounts of debts. Muzzy Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/8/2009 5:37:45 PM   Having said that, dcv, we could also look at California: Highest unemployment for 70 years (12% of population), poverty rate of 20%, teachers on hunger strike over mass redundancies and the state paying staff with IOU's - oh, and 25% of all failed mortgages in the US. The UK doesn't even come close. You're right that the Labour Party have made an incredible mess of the UK, but there's plenty of blame to go around, on both sides of the left/right divide. In the UK, an unregulated banking system has been blamed for our situation - including by many of the bankers themselves. There are plenty that tried to warn the (ineffective) regulator that this crisis was coming, but conflicts of interest prevented anything from being done. This is all a matter of public record, exposed during the public inquiries into the crisis. Socialism has caused lots of problems in the UK, but this isn't one of them. Businesses have gone bust because banks can't afford to continue their overdrafts (which they've operated on for decades), people who should in every way qualify for mortgages can't get one, savers no longer get any return on their money - oh and thousands of people are unemployed, all because of behaviour that netted banking chiefs million dollar bonuses for running their organisations into the ground. Please explain why this is a problem of socialism? FYI, I'm conservative, have been since before the Labour government came to power. What I've seen in this country (UK) is an unfettered abuse of the free market principle, proving that there is no simple ideological solution that is foolproof. As socrates said, "All things in moderation" Socialist bashing fails to provide either a definitive culprit, or an effective answer to the problem. @ Raging Bull: Banks are integral to a nations economy, so the idea of them operating without regulation is, frankly, absurd. As has been eloquently demonstrated, their failure can bring an entire nation to its knees, and a government will be forced to risk bankrupting an economy in order to save them (as has been repeatedly demonstrated around the world). RB, I'd love to hear an explanation of how it's a good thing for unaccountable people to be able to run such nationally depended upon organisations on the basis of personal gain, without the risk of a conflict of interest. On the other hand, you could just explain why such a conflict isn't a problem. I'd truly love to hear a competent defense of either point. Left and right, everyone with a vested interest, be it ideological mumbo jumbo or crooked selfishness, got theirs - the rest of us just got shafted! Rag'n'Bull Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/8/2009 6:08:31 PM   Muzzy, I'm a Brit but please don't think I'm taking political sides, I'm not, I've never voted in my life and I doubt that I ever will, politicians are a bunch of overpaid bullsh1tters. As example, in 1977/8, when labour were in power, Argentina had it in mind to invade the Falkands, labour dispatched a military advance to Ascension Island, it didn't make the news but I know for fact it happened because I was, first hand, involved in dispatching the RAF transport aircraft, Labour's actions deterred the Argies from invading. Conservatives subsequently came to power, and a lot to do with them getting in was to offer the armed forces a significant pay rise, all the armed forces voted conservative. Once in dear old Maggie starts cutting the military budget including the withdrawal of military presence around the Falklands. Well to the Argies this was a green traffic light, conservatives had phucked up, they sent us to war to make amends for the phuck up for labour to turn round and say "well we wouldn't do that", doing exactly what labour had done those years previously, dispatching the military to the south Atlantic to protect a British territory. It makes no difference which political party is in power, they'll all make phuck ups, they'll all bullsh1t, same story just a different picture. I'm not getting into US politics, I don't know enough about it, you're having a pop at labour, some Americans are having a pop at Obama, the shit has hit the fan big time and it would have still hit the fan had conservative or someone other than Obama been in power! durak Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/8/2009 6:09:54 PM   Well, history tends to repeat itself. The US suffered a severe banking crisis in the early 1930s. One of the ways that banks got into trouble, was mixing banking with other sometimes conflicting financial activities, and creating exotic investment instruments whose value was hard to verify (and at the end of the day, flimsy). The ways that banks failed was studied by Congress, and contributed to the Banking Act of 1933, which prohibited banks from mixing in conflicting kinds of financial activities. In 1999, Congress repealed the key provisions of this banking act, allowing banks to write insurance, act as investment firms, etc. etc. New exotic investment instruments were created, like mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations, whose value was hard to verify (and, at the end of the day, flimsy). Banks started getting very sick again... although this matter is debated, the argument that the 1999 repeal contributed to the crisis is simple and, in my opinion, strong. It happens that the repeal was very much a Republican-party program (this party loves to give big businesses what they want). To those who are interested to learn more, we don't have to speculate what happens when banks and financial markets are unregulated: we have many decades of history, in dozens of countries, to give the examples. BTW ragingbull - you wrote, "One time, two times, ten times annual salary. That should be a corporate decision. If they default, they should bear responsibility. This bailout bothers me. Now, the government dictates their business." As I understand it, no bank was required to accept government money - this was a corporate decision! Of course, the money came with strings attached. But the money, and the strings, came to banks that asked for it, it was a voluntary program. The strings were changed after the fact, which seems unfair to many people. But the banks that repay the money then lose the strings. Believe me, there are lots of non-government bailouts that take place in the business world. When you agree to take the bailout money, the company that fronted the money will often come into your office and take over your accounting books and bank accounts, until they are paid back. It's just sensible business practice. Maybe, it would have been better for to let the banks fail. But if it was better to bail them out, the only party who could do it was Uncle Sam - or the People's Republic of China. When Uncle Sam became the bailout guy, was it wrong for him to follow good business practice? To show you how badly these banks are managed, one of them (I want to say Goldman Sachs, but check me on this) repaid the government money as fast as possible - so the execs could pay themselves as much as they wanted - even though the interest rate on the government loans was HALF what they were paying on other large debts. You know, every financial advisor will tell you, "pay off your highest-interest debts first, otherwise you are throwing money away." In other words, these execs raped their stockholders (yet again) in order to pad their already fat paychecks. In a more just world, some of these guys would be serving hard time in a pounding-in-the-a** Federal prison. ragingbull Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/8/2009 7:56:26 PM   Banks were required to take bailout money. Bank of America was doing good because of limited mortgage exposure before their acquisition of Merryl Lynch. Yet, they were required to take bailout money. The amount was kept secret. http://www.georgesmayblog.com/documents-confirm-allegations-tha t-big-banks-were-forced-to-take-bailout-money/ ragingbull Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/9/2009 1:49:33 AM   I already addressed this. Now that the home prices have crashed, we can see how stupid everyone was who invested. Yet, a few years ago, everyone I talked to thought the prices would never go down again. It is wise to invest and crank up those loans if this was so. As I said before, President Bush, Congress, Alan Greenspan, and the private sector did not see the crash coming. If these bank officers did see this coming and still allowed these loans to happen, then I agree that they are crooks. I also posted before that there needs to be regulations to prevent this again. I don't disagree with this. But, if you look at the banks right now, they have already taken the steps. What I am opposed to is massive regulations that will cripple the private industry. Muzzy Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/9/2009 3:14:28 AM   @ RB - agreed :) @ Martin - I wasn't taking a pop at Labour specifically. Well, not regarding the financial crisis anyway. Apologies if it came across that way. Still, I live in a blood-red constituency. Labour could appoint Ted Bundy as their MP for my borough and he'd still get in. I get to see their ideologically based, reality-check-free 'diluted communism' first hand as I work directly with the council on a lot of issues, so I stay conservative at the ballot box (for all the good it'll do). I'm sure once the Tories get in, they'll put their own brand of corruption and incompetency on proceedings, although it's hard to imagine how they could make the situation worse Rag'n'Bull Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/9/2009 3:21:10 AM   Muzzy, Well at least we agree on something, quote, "for all the good it'll do" :) dcv Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/9/2009 10:23:09 AM   I remember the uk labour Party in 1982 as I was stationed over there in uk for 18 months. The uk Labour party wanted to negotiate and surrender the Falkland islands to Argentina.Labour just did not have the spine to fight them.It was only Mrs Thatcher and her government to her credit that wanted to help free the uk citizens from Argentinian occupation. Rag'n'Bull Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/9/2009 12:15:04 PM   That is about spot on dcv. But had Maggie Thatcher not announced the withdrawal from service of HMS Endurance (our Falklands protection ship), the marines in the Falklands and indeed one or more of our aircraft carriers then the Argies wouldn't have invaded in the first instance. As per a previous post of mine, the Argies were going to try it a few years earlier, labour were in power and they saw it coming, they took action to deter it, Maggie was too busy with her shopping budget to see it coming! Rag'n'Bull Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/9/2009 1:29:41 PM   dcv, Where in UK were you stationed? I knew Lakenheath & Mildenhall quite well, the all night disco's at Lakenheath where one could go for a cooked breakfast and then continue partying afterwards :) SOOTY Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/11/2009 8:13:29 AM   dcv you are correct.It is the evils of the Labour Party that have bankrupted Britain and threaten to turn the U.K into an islamic hell hole. Muzzy Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/11/2009 3:22:00 PM   Just curious here, Sooty, do you think the BNP would do a better job? Texasdude Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/11/2009 7:56:57 PM   I think "Sooty" will suggest public lynchings. dcv with his "stars and bars" shows he would approve. I was glad to see Harry Connick Jr. disapprove of a blackface routine that he was judging in Aust. He said in America we have come to far to accept this type of humor no matter how innocent it may appear. dcv Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/12/2009 7:27:25 AM   I would suggest that Texasdunce continues to travel by Jackass as you do on your avatar.It will certainly be a lot safer than flying on a passenger aircraft.In case you had not noticed it is Islamists blowing up passenger aircraft Not Christians. Islamist bombers will not appreciate Limp wristed left wing apologists like yourself -however much you try to ingratiate yourself towards them. Texasdude Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 10/12/2009 7:30:26 PM   Actually a quarter horse is my mount. Very good for rounding up cattle. Being lazy, I now use an ATV and an Austrailian shepard to work cattle. I like using a mule and plow to turn over a garden, but not for all day! That's where my friends from John Deere take over. Have you stopped flying on a passenger aircraft completely? "Do not overcome evil with evil, but overcome evil with good." Your Reply: Your name:   New Registration Password:   Forgot password?   refresh Code:   Russian brides > Main Forum > Will Ukraine & Russia follow the multiracial Muslim experiment of Britain
	Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25