northern rock*

17 Feb

So the Lib Dem recommendation – once mocked by the government – is now going to be policy. Northern Rock is to be “nationalised”.

This sets a pretty shitty precedent, but if you understand the financial world – and the interconnected mesh of daily borrowings that underpins our system – you’d realise why the government had little choice but to step in and secure NR. Once one of the banks defaults, it all gets a bit screwy and the banking system goes into flux, and with the economy the way it is…

I’m just glad none of the piss-taking offers were accepted.

Anyhoo, like I said, what if more of the smaller banks get into trouble? Will the public purse become the safety net? I certainly hope not, and I certainly hope that shareholders are not rewarded for the company’s collapse (it doesn’t look like they will be). Buying shares is a risk, and shareholders know this. I don’t want my taxes used to mitigate someone else’s bad risk.

*I resisted half-a-dozen rock-based clichés and chose that

Advertisements

16 Responses to “northern rock*”

  1. pepeperez67@hotmail.com February 18, 2008 at 9:35 am #

    I understand the nationalisation is a temporary one. As soon as the bank is refloated it’ll become private again. Good for it!The Government always has the excuse it was done to safeguard shareholders from a bankruptcy – a very laudable gesture – only that the costs of refloating the bank would be at the expense of the taxpayer. What the government does not say is that the measure relieves the Bank of England – a fundamental weapon of the private banking system as happens with all central banks – of its obligations.The Government would be consequential with this decision if it did likewise with the growing series of unpaid mortgages that are going to sink many taxpayers into an abyss of debts and poverty. It could nationalise those debts, don’t you think so?

  2. pepeperez67@hotmail.com February 18, 2008 at 9:35 am #

    I understand the nationalisation is a temporary one. As soon as the bank is refloated it’ll become private again. Good for it!The Government always has the excuse it was done to safeguard shareholders from a bankruptcy – a very laudable gesture – only that the costs of refloating the bank would be at the expense of the taxpayer. What the government does not say is that the measure relieves the Bank of England – a fundamental weapon of the private banking system as happens with all central banks – of its obligations.The Government would be consequential with this decision if it did likewise with the growing series of unpaid mortgages that are going to sink many taxpayers into an abyss of debts and poverty. It could nationalise those debts, don’t you think so?

  3. rwsymonds@hotmail.co.uk February 18, 2008 at 3:15 pm #

    To my simple mind, it’s a nice little scam by the ‘fat controllers’ of the global financial system – they win every time, and we pay every time :http://gatwickcity.phpbb3now.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=265&start=10The Government had a choice to expose this scam at our expense – but they chose not – understandably I suppose…those who pull the strings in the global financial markets can bring any government (& its people) to its knees.Doesn’t make it the right choice though, does it ?

  4. rwsymonds@hotmail.co.uk February 18, 2008 at 3:15 pm #

    To my simple mind, it’s a nice little scam by the ‘fat controllers’ of the global financial system – they win every time, and we pay every time :http://gatwickcity.phpbb3now.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=265&start=10The Government had a choice to expose this scam at our expense – but they chose not – understandably I suppose…those who pull the strings in the global financial markets can bring any government (& its people) to its knees.Doesn’t make it the right choice though, does it ?

  5. aaronsheath@gmail.com February 19, 2008 at 12:40 pm #

    It was a bank that was poorly run, which borrowed recklessly (and apparently is still doing so). The shareholders have a responsibility to hold the executive to account, so they only have themselves to blame.

  6. aaronsheath@gmail.com February 19, 2008 at 12:40 pm #

    It was a bank that was poorly run, which borrowed recklessly (and apparently is still doing so). The shareholders have a responsibility to hold the executive to account, so they only have themselves to blame.

  7. rwsymonds@hotmail.co.uk February 19, 2008 at 2:23 pm #

    I disagree.The complex global financial system is a simple, mafia-styled scam – cleverly rigged to benefit the interests of the most powerful on this planet – where they profit every time, and we pay every time. Nobody dares to expose this truth (eg Alistair Darling)…which is understandable, considering such power could bring any ‘whistle-blower’ (eg a Government & its People, a Corporate & its Employees, or an Individual & its Family) to its knees within days.http://gatwickcity.phpbb3now.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=404

  8. rwsymonds@hotmail.co.uk February 19, 2008 at 2:23 pm #

    I disagree.The complex global financial system is a simple, mafia-styled scam – cleverly rigged to benefit the interests of the most powerful on this planet – where they profit every time, and we pay every time. Nobody dares to expose this truth (eg Alistair Darling)…which is understandable, considering such power could bring any ‘whistle-blower’ (eg a Government & its People, a Corporate & its Employees, or an Individual & its Family) to its knees within days.http://gatwickcity.phpbb3now.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=404

  9. aaronsheath@gmail.com February 20, 2008 at 7:29 pm #

    Richard,The rich do screw the poor. No doubt. But to claim it’s cleverly rigged is preposterous. There is little clever about the international banking system. It’s chaos.

  10. aaronsheath@gmail.com February 20, 2008 at 7:29 pm #

    Richard,The rich do screw the poor. No doubt. But to claim it’s cleverly rigged is preposterous. There is little clever about the international banking system. It’s chaos.

  11. snowflakec5@yahoo.co.uk February 20, 2008 at 9:33 pm #

    I understand the shareholders will get nothing as the govt has asked the auditors to value the bank as though the govt had not stepped in to help – which means the bank has no value. I should think shareholders of other banks will take fright. As for Northern Rock – they got into trouble because their chairman (before he was forced to resign) Mark Ridley, was an extreme libertarian, who – get this – thought that there was TOO MUCH regulation of banking and thought he was being clever closing “expensive” branches and shunning retail savers and raising money in the money markets instead – and these decisions were voted on by the shareholders who thought it was wonderful. Most other banks arn’t so cavalier. Most still have branches and are fighting to attract the savings of the retail customer.I’m glad the Branson offer was rejected. The difference between Branson and Murdoch is that Murdoch at least is completely honest about being in business for himself.

  12. snowflakec5@yahoo.co.uk February 20, 2008 at 9:33 pm #

    I understand the shareholders will get nothing as the govt has asked the auditors to value the bank as though the govt had not stepped in to help – which means the bank has no value. I should think shareholders of other banks will take fright. As for Northern Rock – they got into trouble because their chairman (before he was forced to resign) Mark Ridley, was an extreme libertarian, who – get this – thought that there was TOO MUCH regulation of banking and thought he was being clever closing “expensive” branches and shunning retail savers and raising money in the money markets instead – and these decisions were voted on by the shareholders who thought it was wonderful. Most other banks arn’t so cavalier. Most still have branches and are fighting to attract the savings of the retail customer.I’m glad the Branson offer was rejected. The difference between Branson and Murdoch is that Murdoch at least is completely honest about being in business for himself.

  13. pepeperez67@hotmail.com February 21, 2008 at 7:43 am #

    I believe nobody is in business for himself.

  14. pepeperez67@hotmail.com February 21, 2008 at 7:43 am #

    I believe nobody is in business for himself.

  15. rwsymonds@hotmail.co.uk February 21, 2008 at 3:28 pm #

    What is “preposterous”, Aaron, is that those who control the ‘system’ – solely in their own interests, thus creating destructive chaos -continue to get away with it, because we allow them to do so.Governments, Corporates, Media et al are too shit scared to tell it how it is – thus leaving us powerless to change what must be changed…that’s if we want humanity to survive.

  16. rwsymonds@hotmail.co.uk February 21, 2008 at 3:28 pm #

    What is “preposterous”, Aaron, is that those who control the ‘system’ – solely in their own interests, thus creating destructive chaos -continue to get away with it, because we allow them to do so.Governments, Corporates, Media et al are too shit scared to tell it how it is – thus leaving us powerless to change what must be changed…that’s if we want humanity to survive.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s