This is a breathtaking example of lefty irresponsibility, fed by slobs who refuse

[Sir C]

to dress decently. No personal responsibility, you see?

"Tracy Banham’s credit card limit was raised several times without asking, despite her making only the minimum payments. This left her with more than £28,000 of borrowing to repay alone."

Notice the cause of her debt was the credit limit being increased. Nothing to do with her spending the money.

Now do you understand me? A suit, a crsiply ironed white shirt, polished shoes and a perfectly knotted tie. These things will keep you in good mental, physical and economic health.

[Pokster]

to dress decently. No personal responsibility, you see?

"Tracy Banham’s credit card limit was raised several times without asking, despite her making only the minimum payments. This left her with more than £28,000 of borrowing to repay alone."

Notice the cause of her debt was the credit limit being increased. Nothing to do with her spending the money.

Now do you understand me? A suit, a crsiply ironed white shirt, polished shoes and a perfectly knotted tie. These things will keep you in good mental, physical and economic health.

It does beg the question that everytime i have seen you you look like a common workman

[Burney]

to dress decently. No personal responsibility, you see?

"Tracy Banham’s credit card limit was raised several times without asking, despite her making only the minimum payments. This left her with more than £28,000 of borrowing to repay alone."

Notice the cause of her debt was the credit limit being increased. Nothing to do with her spending the money.

Now do you understand me? A suit, a crsiply ironed white shirt, polished shoes and a perfectly knotted tie. These things will keep you in good mental, physical and economic health.

I was thinking the other day that, due to the general softness of society and the educational system these days, there are millions of adults walking the streets who have never been punched in the face. Now I'm sure pretty much everyone of our generation has been punched in the face at one time or another and it has taught us salutary lessons. But what can a generation of kids who've never had a slap possibly know about anything?

It worries me. It really does.

[Ash]

No personal responsibility, you see?

"Tracy Banham’s credit card limit was raised several times without asking, despite her making only the minimum payments. This left her with more than £28,000 of borrowing to repay alone."

Notice the cause of her debt was the credit limit being increased. Nothing to do with her spending the money.


Of course there was no such thing in our society as easy credit until it was invented by Mrs Thatcher. :nod:

[World's End Stella]

to dress decently. No personal responsibility, you see?

"Tracy Banham’s credit card limit was raised several times without asking, despite her making only the minimum payments. This left her with more than £28,000 of borrowing to repay alone."

Notice the cause of her debt was the credit limit being increased. Nothing to do with her spending the money.

Now do you understand me? A suit, a crsiply ironed white shirt, polished shoes and a perfectly knotted tie. These things will keep you in good mental, physical and economic health.

Much like the 2008 crash, actually. :shrug:

How many times have we seen the accusation of 'irresponsible lending' leveled against banks without ever seeing the corresponding allegation of 'irresponsible borrowing' being leveled against the individuals who borrowed money they could not pay back?

Institutions are easy targets you see, individuals - especially the disadvantaged - less so.

[Ash]

Much like the 2008 crash, actually. :shrug:

How many times have we seen the accusation of 'irresponsible lending' leveled against banks without ever seeing the corresponding allegation of 'irresponsible borrowing' being leveled against the individuals who borrowed money they could not pay back?

Institutions are easy targets you see, individuals - especially the disadvantaged - less so.

Ah, but if you take that view that some individuals are stupid, feckless, greedy, and so on, while banking institutions are intelligent, wise, experienced, sober, sensible and fore-seeing, then why on this earth do the banks keep lending these individuals money that they know won't get paid back?

I mean, you can expect stupid people to be stupid, right? So why are smart people like you giving these people money? I mean, as thay say, duh?

[Burney]

Ah, but if you take that view that some individuals are stupid, feckless, greedy, and so on, while banking institutions are intelligent, wise, experienced, sober, sensible and fore-seeing, then why on this earth do the banks keep lending these individuals money that they know won't get paid back?

I mean, you can expect stupid people to be stupid, right? So why are smart people like you giving these people money? I mean, as thay say, duh?

In the case of banking, I would agree with you only to the extent that, by lending irresponsibly, the banks put themselves and their shareholders in jeopardy. That is mismanagement. The individuals, however, deserve no protection from their own stupidity. It's like these fixed odds betting machines that everyone gets upset about. Now I am actually quite puritanical about gambling on a personal level. I think that, of the vices, it is one of the least forgivable. However, I see no reason to protect someone from their own lack of impulse control. If they're stupid enough to keep feeding money into a loaded game, too bad about them. Nature has a way of taking care of such people.

[World's End Stella]

Ah, but if you take that view that some individuals are stupid, feckless, greedy, and so on, while banking institutions are intelligent, wise, experienced, sober, sensible and fore-seeing, then why on this earth do the banks keep lending these individuals money that they know won't get paid back?

I mean, you can expect stupid people to be stupid, right? So why are smart people like you giving these people money? I mean, as thay say, duh?

There are many ways to answer those questions but the simplest is probably that even very intelligent people aren't perfect and can make mistakes and not just once, but on an ongoing basis.

See also, the Vietnam War.

But that fact doesn't mean that the ignorant masses who borrowed money they shouldn't have don't share in the responsibility for the crash and subsequent events. That narrative won't sell as many newspapers as 'evil bankers cause crash and misery and then pocket huge bonus etc etc' though.

[Ash]

Now I am actually quite puritanical about gambling on a personal level. I think that, of the vices, it is one of the least forgivable.

Why is this, in your opinion? Gambling is a vice that I have managed to avoid, having no interest in it, but I don't understand why I am not interested in it, given it's evident popularity, and my enthusiasm at various points for drinking, smoking and drugging. Perhaps I just go for chemical stimulants, rather than the exciting prospect of losing a lot of money.

[World's End Stella]

Now I am actually quite puritanical about gambling on a personal level. I think that, of the vices, it is one of the least forgivable.

Message reported to Kilburn Al.

[Ash]

There are many ways to answer those questions but the simplest is probably that even very intelligent people aren't perfect and can make mistakes and not just once, but on an ongoing basis.

See also, the Vietnam War.

But that fact doesn't mean that the ignorant masses who borrowed money they shouldn't have don't share in the responsibility for the crash and subsequent events. That narrative won't sell as many newspapers as 'evil bankers cause crash and misery and then pocket huge bonus etc etc' though.

Yeah, but bankers are evil, WES. That's just a scientific fact. Nothing personal, of course. I know about the Vampire Squid, you see.

And I'm not buying this "honest mistake, guv. Again." theory.

[Burney]

There are many ways to answer those questions but the simplest is probably that even very intelligent people aren't perfect and can make mistakes and not just once, but on an ongoing basis.

See also, the Vietnam War.

But that fact doesn't mean that the ignorant masses who borrowed money they shouldn't have don't share in the responsibility for the crash and subsequent events. That narrative won't sell as many newspapers as 'evil bankers cause crash and misery and then pocket huge bonus etc etc' though.

Hmmm. Not sure this washes, though. As things stand, large sections of the finance industry are trying to convince the poor, ignorant demos to trust them on the basis that they know best and want the best for everyone on the subject of Brexit. You can't take that kind of patronising/paternalistic line on one hand while on the other saying 'Yeah, we systematically failed, knowingly lied to you, swindled you and screwed you over, but tough shït'.

I'm not saying you're wrong on the issue of personal responsibility, I'm just saying you probably oughtn't to be surprised that people are disinclined to listen to or trust you anymore.

[World's End Stella]

Yeah, but bankers are evil, WES. That's just a scientific fact. Nothing personal, of course. I know about the Vampire Squid, you see.

And I'm not buing this "honest mistake, guv. Again." theory.

In fact, did you know that the most evil of all banks, Goldman Sachs, bet heavily for a property crash and held open positions which would have earned them billions had they forced the counterparties to honour them.

They cancelled almost all the trades as it would have wiped out a rather large number of financial institutions and done irreparable damage to the global economy. And they weren't the only bank in that position who acted in the same way.

Well done investment banks. Some top class bonhomie there.

[Burney]

Why is this, in your opinion? Gambling is a vice that I have managed to avoid, having no interest in it, but I don't understand why I am not interested in it, given it's evident popularity, and my enthusiasm at various points for drinking, smoking and drugging. Perhaps I just go for chemical stimulants, rather than the exciting prospect of losing a lot of money.

I think perhaps it's that I can't understand the buzz. With all the chemical vices, I can at least get how the outlay/reward dynamic works. You're getting something for your money. Gambling just seems a bit abstract to me. To me it seems like giving someone the money for a couple of grammes of coke and there only being a slim chance he's actually going to give it to you.

Like I say, I don't understand the high. :shrug:

[Burney]

In fact, did you know that the most evil of all banks, Goldman Sachs, bet heavily for a property crash and held open positions which would have earned them billions had they forced the counterparties to honour them.

They cancelled almost all the trades as it would have wiped out a rather large number of financial institutions and done irreparable damage to the global economy. And they weren't the only bank in that position who acted in the same way.

Well done investment banks. Some top class bonhomie there.

:hehe: Yeah. Definitely no self-interest for Goldman Sachs in not precipitating the downfall of global capital, was there? Very selfless.

[World's End Stella]

Hmmm. Not sure this washes, though. As things stand, large sections of the finance industry are trying to convince the poor, ignorant demos to trust them on the basis that they know best and want the best for everyone on the subject of Brexit. You can't take that kind of patronising/paternalistic line on one hand while on the other saying 'Yeah, we systematically failed, knowingly lied to you, swindled you and screwed you over, but tough shït'.

I'm not saying you're wrong on the issue of personal responsibility, I'm just saying you probably oughtn't to be surprised that people are disinclined to listen to or trust you anymore.

But the profits of the large banks suggest that people and institutions are doing precisely that. :shrug:

And it probably isn't so much a matter of trust but more likely an indicator of how utterly reliant we are on banks not only for our financial security but for our economy and therefore our lifestyle generally. Amazing how quickly people will forgive or forget someone or something upon which they are completely reliant.

[World's End Stella]

:hehe: Yeah. Definitely no self-interest for Goldman Sachs in not precipitating the downfall of global capital, was there? Very selfless.

Almost philanthropic :-)

[Ash]

But the profits of the large banks suggest that people and institutions are doing precisely that. :shrug:

And it probably isn't so much a matter of trust but more likely an indicator of how utterly reliant we are on banks not only for our financial security but for our economy and therefore our lifestyle generally. Amazing how quickly people will forgive or forget someone or something upon which they are completely reliant.

We are also utterly reliant on electricity, transport and communication networks and farmers. :shrug:

[World's End Stella]

We are also utterly reliant on electricity, transport and communication networks and farmers. :shrug:

True. What's your point?

[Peter]

Much like the 2008 crash, actually. :shrug:

How many times have we seen the accusation of 'irresponsible lending' leveled against banks without ever seeing the corresponding allegation of 'irresponsible borrowing' being leveled against the individuals who borrowed money they could not pay back?

Institutions are easy targets you see, individuals - especially the disadvantaged - less so.

I suppose if we had had to give over 850 billion in public money to the feckless individuals to bail them out we probably would blame them rather the banks.

[Peter]

I think perhaps it's that I can't understand the buzz. With all the chemical vices, I can at least get how the outlay/reward dynamic works. You're getting something for your money. Gambling just seems a bit abstract to me. To me it seems like giving someone the money for a couple of grammes of coke and there only being a slim chance he's actually going to give it to you.

Like I say, I don't understand the high. :shrug:

The high isn't the money. Its the achievement of being right, beating the odds, having the balls to back your judgement. I guess you dont understand that because you dont need gambling to convince you that you are always right- you just know it ;)

Hence I can understand betting on the horses, blackjack, poker. I cant understand fruit machines or games of pure chance.

[World's End Stella]

I suppose if we had had to give over 850 billion in public money to the feckless individuals to bail them out we probably would blame them rather the banks.

True, except that the feckless individuals weren't capable of solving the problem so instead we gave* it to the banks instead because they were.

*except that we didn't give it to the banks, did we? :rolleyes:

[Peter]

True, except that the feckless individuals weren't capable of solving the problem so instead we gave* it to the banks instead because they were.

*except that we didn't give it to the banks, did we? :rolleyes:

I wasnt suggesting that give it to anyone. I would have told the banks to go **** themselves. Debt widely instantly- now that is a revolution...

[World's End Stella]

I wasnt suggesting that give it to anyone. I would have told the banks to go **** themselves. Debt widely instantly- now that is a revolution...

Me too :shrug:

There is certainly no consensus that the banks actually needed to be saved. That was a political decision.

[Pokster]

Me too :shrug:

There is certainly no consensus that the banks actually needed to be saved. That was a political decision.

HBOS would have failed if Lloyds hadn't been pressured to take it over.. and if you think the largest mortgage lender crashing wouldn't have had an even bigger impact on the markets you would be living in la la land