Politics
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 146 comments are related to the topic:
State banking
State banking
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 146
|
By:
gus could you give an example of anything the government do well?
roads, hospitals, the health service, fire services, policing, railway infrastructure, sewerage, education, justice, prisons, defence, social services, taxation, public health, other emergency services .... don't want to bore you with too long a list. |
|
By:
Mighty, well the private companies runnng schools for profit will be taking their profits from individual tax paying citizens then via the state. Is easier to just call it state coffers imo.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
there is no doubt companies exploit government inefficiencies to the detriment of the taxpayer.
it is why taxpayers should keep more of their money and make decisions what to do with their money. like, let the taxpayer choose who to bank with, not make them forced to whatever bank the state says so, and limit that market to one. |
|
By:
I don't think most people would care if they had no choice of bank tbh. State bank where all profits are kept by the state to build infrastructure etc or private banks who cream off billions for themselves and when they **** it up get bailed out by the state hmmm I think the majority would go for state banking by a massive margin.
|
|
By:
there is no doubt that, left to themselves companies will extract the last drop of blood from your body and then criticise you for shirking when you die
it is why citizens should demand that their governments protect them from such predators like, ok you've made a profit this year. well done, we'll invest it in infrastructure so you can make even better profits next year, and if you screw up we'll help you over your problem. |
|
By:
of course the banks should not have been bailed out.
they were failed private enterprises. they would have learnt a lesson not to lend to silly grey haired types on nil deposits on birmingham flats to rent out that they didnt even view, fueled by greed. iceland and estonia didnt and nobody starved. government made the mistake and the immoral decision of robbing the poor to give to the rich. and you want to reward the government by letting them take over the banks? |
|
By:
i bet you CAN bank with the state, dont you have national savings etc?
i bet they are shyte, and you dont get any shiny cards or even a checkbook. arranging a direct debit or calling them up is a most depressing experience. it loses money probably. and that is what they offer when they have to fight for custom. imagine a monopoly. |
|
By:
How much have the government spent bailing out the banks?
In cash terms the UK government has so far spent £123.93bn, but it has at various points since the crisis began been exposed to a sum 10 times larger. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2011/sep/12/reality-check-banking-bailout That's from the same web page that ML took her figures from; note that guarantees are not the same as cash being exchanged. |
|
By:
left to themselves companies will extract the last drop of blood from your body and then criticise you for shirking when you die
bollockios. this is the central, biggest fallacy of leftie thinking. starbucks want to sell you coffee, amazon books, apple ipads. they dont want you to be raped, they want you satisfied. traders on any market want positive experience for their customers. look at tripadvisor, ebay, any capitalistic enterprise and the experience is overwhelmingly positive on both sides. when a plumber fixes your drain, hairdresser cuts your hair, both parties should be pleased with the transaction, someone is offering you a service you want, and people are getting rewarded for their skill or labor. what is the experience with the police, HMRC, DVLA, Border Agency or state monopoly prior to privatisation. |
|
By:
It's nothing to do with reward its to do with benefitting us all and we do still live in a democracy, the state belongs to us all and if we don't like those running it we can kick them out at elections. If we had one state bank that we are all legally obliged to bank with I think we could be assured we would have the same access to fancy looking debit cards as we do now.
|
|
By:
if you are unhappy with your bank switch banks. that is your democracy analogy.
how do you do that in a state monopoly? |
|
By:
i dont want banks to pay for welfare or warfare, or what governments spend money on.
i want a good service. |
|
By:
How hard is banking really? The state bank would ensure that everyone's finances were open and make tax avoidance and evasion far more difficult. Also any profits from the state investment bank would belong to the state not private companies.What's the advantage of keeping banking in hands of private companies? Competition to sell us money with interest ? Look where that led us last time.
|
|
By:
yes, you can bank with the State:
http://www.nsandi.com/ until recently (the last 12 months or so ) they offered the best (2 year) fixed-term bond out of all banks they don't fight for custom because they're not allowed to (by legislation) and in fact, if they're ever in danger of offering better terms than commercial banks they're prevented (by legislation) from doing so, and they don't offer current accounts, again, (i think, tho i'm not sure) because they're not allowed to. they do offer Deposit Guarantee, which means that depositors will be bailed out up to (approx) £85,000 if they go bust, which is good, but then so are depositors with commercial banks, which is absurd. |
|
By:
hard to say, branson has found it easier to crack trains and planes than banking.
doesnt strike me as something that the state could do well, seeing how they c"ck up handling 650 peoples expenses or checking passports, the work of gorillas. |
|
By:
then go with them gus.
they might offer you the best 2 year fixed rate bond, but i never asked for one of those from my banks, and neither have 99% of people. |
|
By:
Agree ML, for that reason we can assume that multiple-nationals would be based elsewhere keeping as little money as possible with bank of UK.
What will the state bank do if people don't pay their mortgage. Will they evict and sell their house? There are already state saving schemes, I had maximum amount of premium bonds for a while. Never won more than £100  |
|
By:
i havent even bothered with losing the biggest positive on the trade balance for the UK, financial services.
dont see getting much money in from overseas for Soviet banking, designed purely to maximise the tax the state receives. or the loss of jobs. or the utter destruction of wealth. we are going slow here. we are dealing with an 18 year old girl, clearly. |
|
By:
Another advantage would be in the matter of benefit fraud. No more multiple housing benefit claims not when the state can eye your bank account whenever they like. Same for working and claiming unless cash in hand obv.Seems we moving into cashless society anyway so even more difficult .
|
|
By:
That the best you've got Ronnie, to insult me? Poor form sir.
|
|
By:
what is the experience with the police, HMRC, DVLA, Border Agency or state monopoly prior to privatisation.
well, my experience is: police ... heven't been murdered, raped, or robbed yet and they're very good at giving directions. HMRC .. fill in the form (online) ... takes about an hour ... get told what i owe them, or, rarely, what they owe me, and pay up Border Agency ... whassat? other state monopolies ... school ... didn't enjoy it but it worked more or less, NHS ... saved my life (big plus for NHS) roads, sewerage, justice ... ok presumably, defence ... now that i have a problem with, I'm ok on being defended but murdering folk a world away is a bit troubling, as are the nukes  |
|
By:
Is it right that China and their state investment bank whipped our private ass and this partly why our banks collapsed?
|
|
By:
gus
sounds like you havent experience them then. you are being obtuse if you think that is positive support for state monopolies of service. how many private companies have left you feeling abused? if they have, which must be the small minority or you are a terrible judge of where to spend your money, werent you grateful you could take your trade elsewhere and never have to come across them again. sweetmarie, i have given you plenty before the insult, that you ignored, which was reasoned, beyond all your "i am sure people would be happy" "i think it would work" "how hard can it be" vagueness. |
|
By:
Sure I've read that somewhere. Funny how they can do that when everyone working for their banks is working for the state but for some reason we can't.
|
|
By:
Is it right that China and their state investment bank whipped our private ass and this partly why our banks collapsed?
no. companies like Northern Rock lent out money they did not have, to people purchasing overpriced assets, namely houses. when house prices stalled, firstly in america, the pyramid scam exploded onto itself. the chinese sell us products by keeping their people controlled, away from news outlets, unrepresented, disenfranchised and operating all state control to keep wages down, so the elite can live the high life. they get the option of only one bank, which the state controls. |
|
By:
Ronnie you dropped in a gratuitous insult and have said nothing convincing as to why state banking would be a worse overall option than we have at present. Vague notions of how we won't have such good debit cards don't wash.
|
|
By:
it has not convinced you yet, because you are a chisel.
the insult is not gratuitous, it is well aimed, relevant and accurate. |
|
By:
Sure I've read about how the Chinese traders whipped ours despite them being employed by the state.
|
|
By:
What is a chisel?
|
|
By:
read it where? in bunty?
|
|
By:
a chisel is a tool with a blunt, undentable edge. it is an analogy for your brains.
|
|
By:
Oh. How cutting. No ,I think I read it in a book about shadow banking.
|
|
By:
sounds like you havent experience them then. you are being obtuse if you think that is positive support for state monopolies of service.
well, actually, i hate it and find it totally embarrassing when folk bang on about their personal experiences, but, despite my reservations, and in light of your question: what is the experience with the police, HMRC, DVLA, Border Agency or state monopoly prior to privatisation. i described my experience. if you don't want folk to describe their experience, my be best advice would be to not ask them to describe their experience. |
|
By:
so thats why they said Bradford and Bingley and Northern Rock collapsed did they?
nothing like economics for the charlatans to write their books. |
|
By:
i DO want you to talk about your experience. you explained to me you had very limited experience in dealing with them.
but i DID want the answer, and dont see how it supports state monopoly of service? |
|
By:
the reason why it supports state monopoly of service is that, in all of the state monopoly of services that i mentioned (with the exception of 'defence') i am entirely satisfied with the service, so i support it.
|
|
By:
that is not what you said.
you said for the police you have never been raped, murdered so could not comment. ask the rape victim what they think of 0.5% conviction rates. Pinkertons always got their man or you did not pay. you said border agency wasssuppp like a child. |
|
By:
why exclude defence, that is crime enough. barclays do a lot of shyte but they dont invade iraq.
HM government does. |
|
By:
The financial crash wouldn't have happened if there had been proper regulation of financiers in the first place, you don't need to read bunty to know that. State banking is the way forward and until you come up with a better idea to ensure the banks can't ever again put whole economies at risk because of their reckless greedy practices I'm sticking with it. The benefits far outweigh any downsides anyone has come up with here.
|