Bankers

[Jon MW]

...
Exactly. Most of the general public is clueless about what happend, and so when they hear about so and so making hundreds of thousands in bonuses, they start moaning. Not really their fault either, they can only go by what is told to them by the media.

I think you're being a bit generous towards, 'the general public', there - anyone with an ounce of sense knows you should interpret what the media represents rather than just consuming it.

[neeko]

If you want to argue that Banks have mispriced risk and therefore overpaid their staff, then i recommend the article below is quoted.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/anatole_kaletsky/article6943418.ece

[boldie]

...
Exactly. Most of the general public is clueless about what happend, and so when they hear about so and so making hundreds of thousands in bonuses, they start moaning. Not really their fault either, they can only go by what is told to them by the media.

I think you're being a bit generous towards, 'the general public', there - anyone with an ounce of sense knows you should interpret what the media represents rather than just consuming it.

you over estimate the general public

[doubleup]

Some good stuff ITT.  To continue my devils advocate role, I really don't see how highly geared investment speculation benefits society.  Shares are a method of investing in business for which you receive a return of profits.  Property investors receive rental income for their investment.  

The great depression was caused by banks lending huge amounts to ppl who could not service that debt, so that these ppl could buy shares which subsequently became nearly valueless. The recent crisis was largely caused by banks lending again to ppl who were speculating on property prices increasing.  

If an organisation wants to speculate with shareholders or private investors capital, that's fine and good luck to them, but when the business co-mingles this activity with my bank deposits and lends these to speculators who won't repay them if it goes bad, I really don't see why this should be allowed.  The bank can easily make a decent profit on my deposits without taking such risks.  

So getting back to my original post, if the banks organise their affairs so that their speculative activities are ringfenced from mundane depositing and lending, I am happy for them to do what they like, but until they do that I can only see bonuses encouraging the behaviour that will lead to another crash.

[rex008]

If you want to argue that Banks have mispriced risk and therefore overpaid their staff, then i recommend the article below is quoted.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/anatole_kaletsky/article6943418.ece

...as an example of the sheer lack of clue of presumably reasonably educated people?

I got to the second paragraph, which basically says that getting people with banking experience to run a bank is a terrible idea, and decided I didn't need to read the rest. Clearly written by a "journalist". And when I say "journalist", I obviously mean "idiot with no clue whatsoever, and probably an enormous chip on his/her shoulder". Bankers are greedy. Yes. And? The rest of the general population are paragons of virtue? They were forced to borrow money they couldn't afford to repay? The blame needs spreading much wider than it is at the moment, IMHO.

Ha. I've just read a bit more, out of sheer morbid curiosity. RBS should be run by the manager of the Royal Opera House, apparently. [ ] Good idea.
Oh, and it should borrow money for nothing from the Bank of England (errr, that's not where banks get their money from, Anatole. You seem to not understand the meaning of the phrase "credit crisis"), and lend it to businesses and homeowners for huge profits.
BUT, it should be run in the most risk averse way possible.
[ ] Reconcilable statements.
[X] Caused the crisis in the first place

FFS. What planet to these people live on?

[boldie]

If you want to argue that Banks have mispriced risk and therefore overpaid their staff, then i recommend the article below is quoted.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/anatole_kaletsky/article6943418.ece

...as an example of the sheer lack of clue of presumably reasonably educated people?

I got to the second paragraph, which basically says that getting people with banking experience to run a bank is a terrible idea, and decided I didn't need to read the rest. Clearly written by a "journalist". And when I say "journalist", I obviously mean "idiot with no clue whatsoever, and probably an enormous chip on his/her shoulder". Bankers are greedy. Yes. And? The rest of the general population are paragons of virtue? They were forced to borrow money they couldn't afford to repay? The blame needs spreading much wider than it is at the moment, IMHO.

Ha. I've just read a bit more, out of sheer morbid curiosity. RBS should be run by the manager of the Royal Opera House, apparently. [ ] Good idea.
Oh, and it should borrow money for nothing from the Bank of England (errr, that's not where banks get their money from, Anatole. You seem to not understand the meaning of the phrase "credit crisis"), and lend it to businesses and homeowners for huge profits.
BUT, it should be run in the most risk averse way possible.
[ ] Reconcilable statements.
[X] Caused the crisis in the first place

FFS. What planet to these people live on?

Yeah I read this in the Times this morning before going into work and thought I just hadn't woken up enough yet as someone who writes for The Times can't possibly be this stupid.


but he was.

edit. just to add Always has been and still is..(I am holding out hope that he won't always been but he has a track record of being horribly wrong...so I don't hold out much hope)

[henrik777]

It's not just journo's that make stuff up.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/feb/02/banks.consumeraffairs

Sandy