State banking

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.

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.

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.

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.

if you are unhappy with your bank switch banks.  that is your democracy analogy.

how do you do that in a state monopoly?

i dont want banks to pay for welfare or warfare, or what governments spend money on.

i want a good service.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 .

That the best you've got Ronnie, to insult me? Poor form sir.

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

Is it right that China and their state investment bank whipped our private ass and this partly why our banks collapsed?

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.

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.

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.

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.

it has not convinced you yet, because you are a chisel.

the insult is not gratuitous, it is well aimed, relevant and accurate.

Sure I've read about how the Chinese traders whipped ours despite them being employed by the state.

What is a chisel?

read it where?  in bunty?

a chisel is a tool with a blunt, undentable edge.  it is an analogy for your brains.

Oh. How cutting. No ,I think I read it in a book about shadow banking.

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.

so thats why they said Bradford and Bingley and Northern Rock collapsed did they? 

nothing like economics for the charlatans to write their books.

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?

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.

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.

why exclude defence, that is crime enough.  barclays do a lot of shyte but they dont invade iraq. 

HM government does.

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.

Marie,
They're separating the investment arms of the banks from the retail sections so that should take care of the problem.
They won't ever have to be bailed out again.

yep, if we really work hard at it and it passes evey stage in the Commons and Lords, by about 2019 we'll be back to where the US was in 1933 with the Glass-Steagall Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act

Aaaaaaaall I hear is dooooooom and gloom


We'll be eating dirt
Living on the side of the roooaaad


Aaaaaaaall I hear is dooooooom and gloom

oh look, someone wants rules.  like which MPs and Starbuck follow.

the single biggest regulation of the free market is that of bankruptcy.  that businesses that are insolvent are not allowed to trade, as they suck productive money. 

that debts if not recoverable are liquidated.

that did not happen, the people were robbed to give to the banks.  and the pezzanovante will tell us they have now written some new "regulation" and we should be happy.

i will tell you another good free market regulation ignored as they get Lloyds in a back room and force a solvent bank to take on a crapola one like Halifax and get the poor to foot the bill.  anti monopoly law, competition commissions.

but we dont need that.  its 1 bank only, run by warmongerers and robbers, and incompetents the government.

but dont worry, gus likes sewers.  built by victorians, when 1% income tax ruled.  and he likes the police but never used them but they give directions better than a TomTom.  if you asked a policeman in 2013 where the Corporation Road was they would tell you to f""" off, but gus aint left his house since 1945.

state banks

Oops

the fifth plank of the communist manifesto

every citizen and company is legally obliged to use for all banking

Good intentions can sometimes have terrifying consequences - this would mean the end of banks that in popular culture are not liked such as HSBC & Barclays in the UK. Banks people still bank with out of choice of course. And an end to banks people like such as the CO-OP and the Building Societies that provide a great service, Norwich&Peterborough etc. And an end to Credit Unions. What else would be outlawed in this well-intentioned vision - insurance companies, loans between friends and family members, even undeclared trades such as bartering eggs for potatoes perhaps. And who would police it.

Free enterprise has brought us BACS transactions which cost big organisations just under a 1p a time, contactless payment systems, and foreign currency orders delivered securely to a rural front door in less than 24 hrs. Innovations galore.
Free enterprise also gives you Payment Protection Insurance, high overdraft charges and credit card interest, so it's not all rosy. And moneysaving experts and consumer rights watch-dogs telling you these are bad deals. You are free to say NO to these financial products.
Meanwhile the government awards a contract for Post Office Card Accounts which costs the taxpayer just over 50p a transaction. What Marie Louise is offering is not for me.

bongo it wouldn't need to be the end of credit unions, insurance companies, loans between friends or the bartering of potatoes. The idea is that all banking transactions would have to be done via the state bank, nothing to stop people lending each other money at all. Just have to use the state bank or cash , only difference between what we have now is the banks are all owned by the state not private companies.

wackjob, so what?

I see some chump has come out with the classic "bailout cost trillions" again.  Some company for dummy Karla perhaps? 

How much has the bailout cost Java ?

We are there in all but name anyway.

Operation Merlin flopped, and the follow up.

If the banks wont lend to small businesses, and the government believe that is key to the recovery, the next step is obvious; the political doctrine is stopping the Coalition the way it stopped New Labour.

I was a firm believer that the State could not run a business as efficiently as the Private Sector; that was 25 years ago. Look at the state of our banks; look at the subsidies we pour into privatised Rail Network, Power, Arms.

The current crop of prima donnas and egotists are not a patch on entrepreneurs of previous generations, that is the problem.
Two hundred years to build up some of the banks; and somebody who thinks a degree in Business Management or Marketing means he knows best can screw it up in five years.

Interesting pount Mister E.

I've recently done some in-depth research (by closing my eyes and making a stab at the relevant dates and figures) which indicates a 100% inverse relationship between the number of MBA courses available at any given time in any given economy (or company)  and the performance of that economy or company  at any given time.

"How much has the bailout cost Java ?"

£300-£400 billion from memory last night I totted it up which included guarantees.

"last time".  I didn't sit on a Saturday night musing over the bailout. 

"and somebody who thinks a degree in Business Management or Marketing means he knows best can screw it up in five years."

You won't see many of those degrees on the trading floor to be fair Mister E.

You don't rate MBAs Gus?  I don't have one, but just interested why not.

Mister E has it right, naturally.  the market rewards success appropriately, subsidy just creates more of what it subsidises.

so if it subsidises poor business practices, we get more of it, if it subsidises child production, we get more of it, if it subsidises non productive welfare gathering, we get more of it.

seen too many perfectly good engineers turned into useless to$$ers by becoming MBAs

i do not agree with java on this one.  the pricing of the bailout in the figures on a spreadsheet do not provide the whole story.

like the chief exec looking at how much he saved outsourcing his IT to India, it does not include the loss of production from fee earners in London having a PC down for a day wasting time calling India, when Jon dowstairs came up and fixed it in one tick.

the cost of the bailout has not been just giving Northern Rock $50billion for $3billion of deposits and it still failing, that sort of madness.

what is the cost of a generation out of the house market, no turnover in the property, the stagnant economy, 20 years of dealing with debt that will not be paid, the QE effecting prices, the loss of living standards.  it is not just the spreadsheet exercise. 

the UK and the US are in threat of losing centuries old standing, as the people still largely work, invent, trade.  the cost could well be trillions in lost production, all sorts.

and yes, i do include the interest rate manipulation, the spending of HB to protect the house bubble as protecting the banks, and part of the package.

the government never really cared about the crappens, because they dont pay for government projects, but they cared about the big banks, who do.

it is the banks they rescued by QE, and interest rates, and it is as much part of the bailout as the money dived into B&Bingley, and as much a consequence of the credit bubble fueled by property speculation.

By inference, I think the OP is saying that she DOES wish to turn so-called ethically run banks ( Cooperative ) and not-for-profit mutuals such as building societies into illegal organisations. She will proscute them if don't merge into the state banking Borg. What else will be outlawed - getting foreign currency from anywhere except the post office, pay-day loan outfits, peer-to-peer lenders and cash coverters too.

But if I want to lend 50k to my uncle for a bridging loan while he sells up and moves to a smaller house ( because 'the computer says no' down at the state bank because of his age ) with a suitable guarantee and agreed rate of interest and I collect back 54k a year later, this is ok - and then he tells his friends at the Legion that this was good business from his pov - so a few more carefully checked out customers in his age group come my way - an advert is taken out in the Legion magazine and a part-time business builds - at what point does the State step in to outlaw this operation.

It's a hideous vision you have Marie Louise, banning the not-for-profits and 'ethical' operations along with the sleazier merchants and LIBOR manipulators, leaving only mediocrity.

the crappens are just carried along, subsidised and still smug they made a "smart" decision to buy in 2004-7 the great bubble, and dont realise that if interest rates were 2% above inflation, there was no housing bubble they would be obliterated.

but the government dont care about crappen being obliterated, but that the big banks would be carried with them, because crappen would not have the funds to pay back the $100,000s on a negative equity slum BTL portfolio being repossessed.

Spain has more chance getting money from the British pensioner because they are more solvent.

the UK has SO much unique in the housing model.  the interest only mortgage, the 7 hours of Homes under Hammer, HOmes in the Sun, HOmes in the Property Pornography on state Tv, the MILLIONS of amateur investors investing to rent out in places they sometimes didnt even look at, all on low deposit and MEWed money.  it makes Vegas and Dubai look sane.

edit: no housing benefit, not no housing bubble.

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

From the previous page.

in cash terms that might be right.

but what has been the true loss of people losing disposable income levels, loss of value to savings, the continued subsidy of welfare, governments not curtailing their spending, the loss in churn in the housing market due to its price fixing manipulations, the lack of activity, all arising from QE, low interest rates, the whole package of "bailout" to the overindebted and the banks.

it is not just the checks paid out to 2 building societies that has been the only "cost" to the economy in the shambolic response to the 2008 "collapse".

RBS lost £24.1 billion in 2008 ... if that's a "collapse", what's a collapse please ?

I see some chump has come out with the classic "bailout cost trillions" again.  Some company for dummy Karla perhaps?

And the BBC in 2009 can join us as they reported it had cost the UK £2.4 trillion and the US £3.6 trillion - £30,000 for each person in the UK $10, 000 for each US citizen.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8248434.stm

Better Markets calculate that the crash has cost the US $12.8 trillion by 2012

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-09-14/tallying-the-full-cost-of-th...

Can't find an estimate of how much it has cost the UK by 2012 I expect that's because it's dwarfed by the cost of benefit scroungers and their ilk eh Java?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/5995810/IMF-puts-total-cost-of-crisis-at-7.1-trillion.html

The Telegraph 2009 reports what the IMF calculate the crash cost the world ^

I suppose they can work how much we were making by pumping up the economy before the financial crisis as well.

What's the figure for that?

It's all nonsense.

bongo the idea of the State bank is to ensure transparency in finances, stop any more theft by private banks and all profits ploughed back into the State to benefit us all rich or poor not to stop you lending anyone as much money as you like just you would use either the state bank or cash to do it.

Marie Louise - are you trying to illustrate to cost of a global recession or the cost of the bailout?  You appreciate this is different surely?

@ Marie Louise - your figures from 2009 are being used incorrectly - they are the estimated potential cost, or the value of the guarantees made.
To quote from the bbc article itself - ' most of this bail-out money was in the form of guarantees to the banking system, and as that system pulls out of the crisis, governments stand to recover most but not all of that money '.

Even more crazily Alistair Darling, 1 year later, was claiming that the bailouts would potentially cost the taxpayer next to nothing ( of course, he would say that, as he had such a hand in them, and along with G Brown panicked when the queues outside Northern Rock started, and again when the bigger banks came telling him what a mess they were in )
.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/26/profit-taxpayers-bailed-out-bank-shares

Which is why people like him should never be allowed near the reins of the public purse again.

Another option is to look at the figures from the public finances databank for the deficits since the last balanced budget of 01/02 in bn of GBP:
2011-12  131.5 
2010-11  136.2 
2009-10  156.8  ( successful attempt to prevent the main opposition forming overal majority, with new record overspend )
2008-09   96.5
2007-08   34.2
2006-07   31.7
2005-06   38.4
2004-05   40.9 ( successfully bought the outcome of the election, with record overspend )
2003-04   34.1
2002-03   26.1
2001-02   0.9  

As an approximation about half the government overspend since 08/09 has been printed, and half borrowed - you can add all the deficits since 08/09 if you like, it doesn't get you the 1 trillion plus 'cost' of the bailouts that cryoftruth and others shriek about.
The major problem is not what's already been spent, it's what the commitments or liabilities are both in banking but in almost all the other areas of public expenditure, and that the current Chancellor has no intention of having a proper crack at dealing with them. We need an Andrew Jackson, and we needed him in 2010.

Bongo - Marie Lousie wants to pin the opportunity cost of not being in a boom on the banks, which is clearly absurd.  If you want to blame the banks for foregone GDP growth, then you have the credit this number by adding back the profit of all GDP growth which happened due to a credit boom.

In summary, the numbers she/he quotes are meaningless.

@ Marie Louise - so are you saying that HSBC, Barclays, Standard Chartered, the COOP can carry on then, so long as their VISA , BACS, CHAPS, Faster Payments and all other transactions of any kind are made available to the State to peruse and analyse as they see fit, for the purpose of stopping money laundering, tax evasion, fraud etc.
And a 100% rate of Corporation tax to apply.
Or are you saying that any privately run banking would become illegal. It's not clear how you envisage this.

Private banking need to be regulated properly like it was from the 1930's to 1980's. No need to nationalise them all.

bongo I'm suggesting that it becomes compulsory for all financial transactions to go through the state bank ie the state bank does all that is currently done by the private banks. Any investments a person or company wants to make can be made just the money will go in and out of the state bank rather than private banks as it does now. No private banks will be able to get a licence to bank so that will be the end of them.

Java how much of the banks assets are mortgages on ridiculously over priced property? How much do you reckon the banks will need to keep their capital reserves at a reasonable level once property prices drop to their real level?

the ONLY advantage MaryLouise gives is that the revenue can track the money.

they can do anyway, via any UK regulated bank, people dodging tax aint depositing in the high street.

it is either paid cash, or hidden overseas.  which would only be encouraged by having one bank in the UK.

the only people being punished would be the honest people.  it is SO misguided.

does she really think dodgy money sits in her local Chiswick branch of Nationwide?

maybe she wants to shut down Isle of Man or Switzerland, that would be a better policy.  tHe uk could actually do that to the Manx, and most tax havens, because they are British owned.  THAT is a far better policy than shutting down Yorkshire Bank.

Ronnie the idea of the State bank is to ensure transparency in finances, stop any more theft by private banks and all profits ploughed back into the State to benefit us all rich or poor Not just the benefit to the revenue in ability to collect taxes but also prevention of benefit fraud.

What is the benefit of private banks in all your humble opinions?

I'd have universal benefit too, an amount that is just about enough to live on given to every citizen once they are 16, paid from the state bank directly to each citizens state bank account to be used as they wish. Anything extra has to be worked for.

And as far as mortgages are concerned obviously the state bank would never be giving mortgages which are not linked to wages , 3 times the annual wage it used to be I think ,seems about right. No chance of mortage fraud when all finances are transparent either.

Not just the benefit to the revenue in ability to collect taxes but also prevention of benefit fraud.

thats a change of tack, and an even more bizarre one.

well benefit fraud is even less connected to the bank it gets paid into.  benefit fraud arises from people that play golf pretending they are disabled, and people inventing kids, or pretending they dont live with a partner, or working in the market getting cash on their Reggae CD stand and getting their giros in the week.

it has very little with the Nationwide Building Society continuing.

And as far as mortgages are concerned obviously the state bank would never be giving mortgages which are not linked to wages , 3 times the annual wage it used to be I think

that is a totally new reason as well.

if you wanted to do that ,why not pass a law to ensure UK registered banks didnt do that, and still give the customer all the options of where to bank, so at least there is market pressure on interest rates, service levels etc?  why does it only need the one bank?

the one bank was based on tracking money i thought.

a state bank would have even less reason to be careful who to lend to and what levels, because the clients are their voters.

being scared to tell certain voters they made bad decisions is PRECISELY why they have bailed them out with low interest rates and subsidies.

politicians have been used to giving the people what they WANT and arent willing to pay for, which is why we have these deficits.

the MARKET provides better protection against irresponsible lending, because the MARKET would let the failed lenders lose.  and go bankrupt. 

it is the BAILOUT that was wrong, done by the STATE BANK that exists, the BofE.

What are you on about 'totally new reason' 'change of tack', I've been consistent throughout with the notion that compulsory state banking would benefit our society . There are many reasons why it would benefit us some of which I've mentioned here I'm sure others can come up with even more. What's the advantage/s of private banking?

I thought a lot of benefit fraud was people making multiple housing benefit claims for example, something which would be impossible if all finances were open. I understand the rigght on here are much more concerned about people who claim while working for a pittance cash in hand but I don't think their envy is justified by the amount that actually costs the tax payer.

Ronnie do you think Doctors who work in the NHS are making clinical decisions based on party politics?

Because the market will regulate it.  If there are no bailouts.  A state bank would be accountable only the politicians.

Oh, and despite the 2008 debacle, long term it's still our best industry and the tax revenue pays for many services.

And as for your last point surely prevention is better than cure, the banks have proved themselves incompetent greedy and reckless with other people's money , it's time they all lost their banking licences .

What's the advantage/s of private banking

a wide range of choice of service, all benefitting from competition to make the most attractive offering to the customer.

UK banking is largely fee free, and some even pay you to deposit money.

if you want to invest money, they compete to offer the best rate.

if you want to borrow money, they compete to offer the best rate.

99.9% of people need to save and borrow at different times, or the same time for different reasons.

many companies exist, the market grows and makes profits which go to the exchequer.  so important are they to the exchequer, the exchequer does what it can to support them.

they are free to compete for overseas business, a state monopoly would be banned from competing overseas, certainly the EU, and North America would want nothing to do with a State Monopoly entering their territory.  all the positives for the trade balance, one of the last great positive industries in the trade balance of the UK would be LOST, losing far more.

what would it do to benefit having a state bank?  it would not make tax hidden in switzerland or under the mattress appear, it would not make someone playing golf on disability go honest, or mean Tracy admitted living with Kevin, and it certainly would not benefit the customer.

"Java how much of the banks assets are mortgages on ridiculously over priced property?"

This is the reason a sound bank asks for a deposit from the buyer.  If the house price crashes and the borrower can't pay the asset will be sold and they should get their money back.

If banks aren't asking for deposits then they will be in trouble and the free market will punish them.  As is what happened in 2008 untill they all were given a free option by Governments.

Are China banned from competing overseas then? I didn't know that.

Ronnie do you think Doctors who work in the NHS are making clinical decisions based on party politics?

no.  a state monopoly bank would not make errors based on party politics.  it would offer worse deals through no competition.

doctors are trained professionals treated to save people.  bankers are not so trained, or have such clear motives, but they are necessary to an economy.

Are China banned from competing overseas then? I didn't know that.

they were when they were running a state monopoly, yes.  you are aware they looked at free market Hong Kong, gasped, lost their communist minds and started trading, hence the boom?

do you think the State Monopoly Bank of UK would be welcome in New York or Paris?  do you know EU law, and how the New York financial system works?

UK benefits so much in export/import balance via financial services.

it has lost a lot sh"tting all over its manufacturing, to do the same to financial services, in the belief that Nationwide is hiding tax money, not Bermuda, Switzerland, is very very silly.

"Hello we are the Kremlin Bank circa 1970, the Mao Bank circa 1980, and the MarieLouise UK bank circa 2013, can we trade in New York, Frankfurt and Paris".

"No, f""k off".

BP wouldnt be drilling in the Gulf, Alaska, making most of its money for Britain stateside if it was a state run monopoly, as it was in 1970.  Congress might say something.

and any stench of Chinese State drilling gets told the same.  i promise you.

if you want to fill Croydon up with disenfranchised voters on 20p an hour to sell us plastic tat we might talk.  maybe some of you would prefer to be smuggled to yankee to pick cockles rather than deal with that shyte though.

would one have to have the'right' political attitude to get de loan from de state bank

would you have to have de certifucate of  political correctness

people would be k"kking themselves around end of Jan to see if they collect the right tax.

heard NIGHTMARE stories of all the brits getting wrong calculations and Mary wants HMRC to OWN the only bank you can bank with.  LEgally.

it is beyond belief horrific.  i have tried my best, but she still thinks nobody has told her a reason why its bad. 

does the ML believeing in all de tenets of de communist manifesto

viz-

http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/planks.html

am i guessing that miss ML  plans would quite a bit authoritarian be

super

Russia had a State Bank monopoly. The queues to get the money out were longer than the ones for bread.

would you have to sign de paper miss ML say you believe in de man made global warming

to getting de loan stamped ok

And in this state controlled scenario, whither comes innovation?

And in the drive to prevent fraud, why is it that when the state control the benefit system, they don't have automation that flags up when the same bank account appears on 3 or more tax credit claims. Or that someone can work for a LA care home and claim DWP benefits on the grounds of incapacity at the same time, paid to the same account, until such time a member of the public shops them.

Innovation as practised by the private bankers in the last few decades we can do without. The State Investment Bank will provide all the banking 'innovation' we need. If only Labour had got in in the 80s , a State Investment bank was in their manifestos you know. No wonder the bankers press crucifed them.