NSC DECIDES - the US Presidential election

[tedebear]

Does anyone know when the first exit poll results are released?

(they are not entirely reliable, but usually a good indicator)

Not sure but CNN.com has a counter showing 9 hours until the last polling both closes...

oops 8 hours 37 minutes...

 

[beorhthelm]

If you believe that there is no point answering the rest of your questions.

no, come on educate me. what was the original purpose of the bank then, beyond a safe place to store your money? and how do we lend/borrow money without them?

I would like all outside interests of private banks to be declared. ie - What media they run, what tobacco and alcohol companies are owned by them, which news agencies they fund.

what you mean besides all the shareholding that are public knowledge?

 

[sten_super]

I can see and agree on some levels with what you're saying but I think we have too many banks. Letting one or two fail would highlight those banks with whom people would have confidence, and those banks would probably turn out to be the ones with the least risky portfolios, which is what we're aiming for. People not taking the piss with our money.

I think people voted for it as they don't really understand economics and they wanted a quick fix. I might be wrong as I'm no economist but thats my hunch.

The problem with letting banks go is how horrifically unpopular it would be. Can you imagine the OUTRAGE of the Daily Mail when poor Lucinda, a single mum with 4 kids, was forced to sell her house in the middle of a housing downturn because no-one could afford to buy the mortgage book that Barclays had when it went bust, thus forcing the bank to liquidate its holdings to pay creditors.

I think, in this case, that another problem was that it wouldn't have been one or two banks. It would have been most. As soon as one went, with the liabilities it owed to another bank they would have gone, and it would have been a domino effect.

What is needed now is a rethink and tighter regulation of the whole sector; they've all been involved in mis-pricing risks and not having enough security (in the form of cash).

 

[Simster]

Nibble, if all you're going to do is rubbish everybody elses opinion and belittle anyone who isn't as cynical as you are, all the time whilst offering no alternative then you're just making yourself look like a total plum.

 

[Nibble]

Not only will most of us disagree with this reasoning, but in addition you don't seem to be prepared to offer any form of alternative to a regulated banking system...

I want a regulated banking system> We haven't got one now.

 

[tedebear]

The problem with letting banks go is how horrifically unpopular it would be. Can you imagine the OUTRAGE of the Daily Mail when poor Lucinda, a single mum with 4 kids, was forced to sell her house in the middle of a housing downturn because no-one could afford to buy the mortgage book that Barclays had when it went bust, thus forcing the bank to liquidate its holdings to pay creditors.

I think, in this case, that another problem was that it wouldn't have been one or two banks. It would have been most. As soon as one went, with the liabilities it owed to another bank they would have gone, and it would have been a domino effect.

What is needed now is a rethink and tighter regulation of the whole sector; they've all been involved in mis-pricing risks and not having enough security (in the form of cash).

True - all good points...just would have liked to be able to see it all correct itself...

 

[Les Biehn]

I think the current system perpetuates itself so there is little room for manoeuvre. However the revolution isn't coming and as much as I would like to think we will work the fields in the morning, all be creative and merry in the afternoon and return to our ecologically sound homes in the evening it's just never ever ever ever going to happen.

 

[Nibble]

Yes you are all correct. The banks have your best interests at heart. Your money is not being used to fund wars and inflate the bellies of private banks. The banks haven't just lost thousands of peoples savings and the banks haven't stolen that money back from us. As you were everybody.

 

[7:18]

Obama

 

[DTES]

no, come on educate me. what was the original purpose of the bank then, beyond a safe place to store your money? and how do we lend/borrow money without them?

The original purpose of a bank, the sole reason why any bank is set up, is exactly the same as any business - to make a profit.

If you were right - if a bank were set up to keep money safe - it would not be allowed to loan out that "safe" money to anybody else.

This is not a tricky concept.

 

[Nibble]

Nibble, if all you're going to do is rubbish everybody elses opinion and belittle anyone who isn't as cynical as you are, all the time whilst offering no alternative then you're just making yourself look like a total plum.

I am not rubbishing opinions I feel I have been very patient with some of the more narrow minded people on here.

Just because a lot of you have got all your money tied up in corrupt institutions you will not accept that this is the case. Even now it has been proven without doubt that banks/government are corrupt and theives, before our very eyes people still kid themselves. I suppose it is because you have so much to lose with these people. I can understand that.

 

[Scoffers]

Why is everyone jumping on the Obama bandwagon do you think? Is it his opposition to the war? Do we really think he'll be any better than Bush?

 

[sten_super]

Yes you are all correct. The banks have your best interests at heart. Your money is not being used to fund wars and inflate the bellies of private banks. The banks haven't just lost thousands of peoples savings and the banks haven't stolen that money back from us. As you were everybody.

Nibble, we understand that you don't like the banking system. But what is the alternative? Please, explain this to me.

 

[Nibble]

The original purpose of a bank, the sole reason why any bank is set up, is exactly the same as any business - to make a profit.

If you were right - if a bank were set up to keep money safe - it would not be allowed to loan out that "safe" money to anybody else.

This is not a tricky concept.

Thank you.

 

[tedebear]

I am not rubbishing opinions I feel I have been very patient with some of the more narrow minded people on here.

Just because a lot of you have got all your money tied up in corrupt institutions you will not accept that this is the case. Even now it has been proven without doubt that banks/government are corrupt and theives, before our very eyes people still kid themselves. I suppose it is because you have so much to lose with these people. I can understand that.

But you're talking with such sweeping cynical generalisations!

Banks are not corrupt per se - you see making money out of other peoples money as corruption, I see it as a free market.

The banks didn't steal the money back - the government gave them money in exchange for partial ownership.

I understand it as I know how it works. You don't so you are cynical.

 

[Nibble]

Nibble, we understand that you don't like the banking system. But what is the alternative? Please, explain this to me.

No. The alternative I suggested was outright rubbished. The problem people like you have is that you have bought into the over complication of the banking system. It is all far simpler than banks would have you believe.

 

[aftershavedave]

No. Nothing to do with that nonsense but if you believe that governments are not run by Private banks you would be very surprised indeed young man.

that's the most stupid (of a long line of stupid things) that you've posted today.

for a chap who obviously has a modicum of intelligence, even if you strive very hard to convince us otherwise, this latest expose of yours, namely that banks run governments, is the best of the lot.

i can tell you from first hand knowledge that it is absolute garbage

 

[tedebear]

Why is everyone jumping on the Obama bandwagon do you think? Is it his opposition to the war? Do we really think he'll be any better than Bush?

I think its because he's a complete and utter breath of fresh air, McCain is too close in age to Bush. Out with the old for the Americans!

 

[Nibble]

But you're talking with such sweeping cynical generalisations!

Banks are not corrupt per se - you see making money out of other peoples money as corruption, I see it as a free market.

The banks didn't steal the money back - the government gave them money in exchange for partial ownership.

I understand it as I know how it works. You don't so you are cynical.

I know exactly howe the banking system works and doesn't work.

Anyway - carry on. This is exactly how banks get away with quite literally murder.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Why is everyone jumping on the Obama bandwagon do you think? Is it his opposition to the war? Do we really think he'll be any better than Bush?

Opposition to the war helps his cause with a lot of people I am sure.

I am sure he will be better than Bush. Most people know it is not easy to implement major change in power - ask Tony Blair - but a new intelligent approach to world affairs and global issues will be a major step forward. With less influence from the war-mongers and fundamentalists that surrounded Bush I hope.

However, Events dear boy, events will dictate a lot of what can be done. Plus the fact the country will be in recession. Still, it is hopefully a new dawn.