Where is my damn money! The myth of government redistribution

[Denny Crane!]

This is my favourite soapbox at the minute.

It has been said that the amount of support for the banks has equalled 1.16 trillion pounds. This is money that could instead have been given directly to the people either as shares in the banks they bought or in direct cash payments or in a negotiated reduction of debts in exchange for cash. There are plenty of economists who have advocated this with plans on how it would be done which could have guaranteed that those in debt would be forced to use assets or cash given to deleverage debts thus accomplishing the necessary recapitalisation of banks.

But they didn't. What is worse is there isn't a single British or EU politician I'm aware of that is advocating this so the idea of being able to vote in a rational socialist choice is a fantasy.

The government has had every opportunity to enrich the people, buy the banks and give them to the people or destroy the vast bulk of private debt through financial support. They have no intention of changing their failed attitudes either.

So when people talk about taxing the rich to solve the problems, to create a fairer system through our politicians? I just think given the chance they'll go back down the route of the last ten years of buying more and more public services/voters and not worrying about the fiscal health or the equality and fairness of the country.

[Jedi1]

Why would they give a damn about genuinely serving the people or caring for the fiscal health of the nation though. I substantial set of their campaign contributions comes from large banks which profit from the current screwed up system and set of policies.

What we need is to get rid of the current set of parties and politicians and we need fresh people with our interests at hart as opposed to those of the banks. And we can no expect honest or effective governance until this occurs. This is precisely the reason I am not planing to give my vote to anyone come the next election down here in auz, we have nobody to vote for who I trust to govern the country.

[Condottiere 40K]

I'd like to say it's the invisible hand of the market that's manipulating the political sock puppets.

[Denny Crane!]

I'd like to say it's the invisible hand of the market that's manipulating the political sock puppets.

I really don't think you understand that there is a distinction between markets, market forces and business.

[Adar]

But they didn't. What is worse is there isn't a single British or EU politician I'm aware of that is advocating this so the idea of being able to vote in a rational socialist choice is a fantasy.

Then I think you should convert to being Swedish

I made a thread about it last year.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=487989

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I have for a long time been frustrated by how European politicians, economists and journalists have been willing to turn private debt into public debt by having the European countries taking over the bad debts of the banks. Yesterday Anders Borg (financial minister of Sweden) and Carl Bildt (foreign minister of Sweden) published an article in Financial times on how Sweden solved it's banking crisis in the 90s (full article here). They are of course very polite but in essence they are essentially stating that the German-French-EU politicans are using the wrong tools when they are trying to solve the crisis and focus too much on saving share holders.

Their central thesis is that the solidity of the banks should be solved by equity issuance and not the unsecure loans that are currently creating bad loans that the tax payers will have to pay. If share holders are unable to raise enough money in this way, then the government will do so and demand shares according to their current market price. In the end this means that instead of bad loans, the government will own large parts of the banks that can be sold after the crisis.

To gain credibility from the markets and be accepted by our citizens, such a backstop needs to be guided by four principles. The purpose is to safeguard the financial system, not shareholders. Bank share purchases should be based on market prices reflecting the value of the failing bank in the absence of support measures, with "hair-cuts" if necessary. Prices should be determined after due-diligence from a third party. Second, when tax-payers risk their money, they should receive the potential upside of the investment. This is important in mitigating moral hazard.

Third, public capital injections warrant public control of bank management, including strict control of dividend policy, bonuses and salaries. This is vital to deter dangerous risk-taking and to ensure public support for using tax-payers' money. Fourth, the backstop should operate at arms-length from national governments without political involvement in commercial decisions.

They are also quite openly stating that the "stress tests" conducted by the EU are dishonest crap only used to lure the population into a false sense of security. Of course they are a bit more polite about it but if new and honest tests are required, then it's quite obvious that the previous tests weren't conducted in such a manner.

Based on our experiences we believe several steps are now needed. The size of the problem must be addressed directly and openly. Hence, the European Banking Authority needs to carry out a credible and rigorous stress test identifying which banks need capital injections. Troubled banks should be subjected to a deeper third party assessment, like the one Blackrock performed in Ireland.

[Denny Crane!]

Sweden why would we want to be them? A country that has weathered the financial crisis easily and has constantly improving standards of living.

Away with your craziness, people don't want rational and reasonable thinking combined with sound economics!

Makes me sad