Why did we not just let BOI/Anglo/AIB sink?

Dr_Phil

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Your analogy also indicates that you "could" afford it, because you said you'd come back tomorrow.....it wasn't that you couldn't actually afford it, it was that you'd simply left your wallet behind.

Yep, but when I came back I've noticed that my walled got stolen (I was a builder and I've lost a job and I did not predict this possibility, as at the time of buying coke it was very unlikely)

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If you told someone that you absolutely couldn't afford the 2-litre bottle, and they gave it to you, and you didn't return to pay it, the owner of the shop would ask the cashier if you'd stolen it; when it was proven that you hadn't, and that you'd said that you couldn't afford it, then the guy behind the counter would be 100% at fault.

If the shop was a public institution obliged to offer a bottle of coke to anyone who's gonna ask and promise to pay later (like bank), then your example does not necessarily have to be right. Because you will have to predict all the financial problems that the customers may/will get into and on this basis judge whether they pay it off or not and therefore whether you can give them a bottle of coke or not. And better the shop is right in the judgement, as during prosperity is very easy to get accused for "not following the mission, etc"

Otherwise - yes, I agree with your logic.

Long story short - if banks would not lend - there would be moaning that they dont and stop the economy, etc. (you can actually hear some of these now, companies get no credit for investments, families get no mortgages) They have - there is moaning that they have. It's hard to please everyone. And someone has to be a scapegoat. If not customer (society) then...

MaceFace

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Your analogy is flawed because you're equating not being able to drink it (which in monetary terms would be the same as not being able to spend it).

The issue is paying for it.

Your analogy also indicates that you "could" afford it, because you said you'd come back tomorrow.....it wasn't that you couldn't actually afford it, it was that you'd simply left your wallet behind.

If you told someone that you absolutely couldn't afford the 2-litre bottle, and they gave it to you, and you didn't return to pay it, the owner of the shop would ask the cashier if you'd stolen it; when it was proven that you hadn't, and that you'd said that you couldn't afford it, then the guy behind the counter would be 100% at fault.

Should you have taken it ? No.
Were you straight up and chanced your arm while being honest ? Yes.
Is the fault with the guy behind the counter who knew you couldn't afford it ?

Absolutely.

This analogy is poor because it involves paying for an item on receipt and the chap in your analogy has told the cashier that he could not afford this.

Why not use the analogy of McDonalds. A person goes into and orders a burger and coke. As usual, he gets the reply "would you like fries with that". He goes for it. Eventually he gets fat and needs a bypass. Would you blame the restuarant for selling him food that would make him fat, or would your reply be more of the line of "hold on fatty, did it not occur to you that the person behind the counter is running a business which involves them taking as much of your money as possible in return for a service. Did you not think that there may be consequences to your actions"

Where is the personal culpability in your stance?

Now, don't get me wrong, the banks are very guilty in many of the things they done, but being free enterprises, they have already suffered much. The problem though is that people generally think the banks are the people running them and that there is no difference between Seanie and Fingers as there is with Anglo or Nationwide. While this is the romantic view and it allows people to see blame being laid, the banks are much bigger. Share holders are the primary concern of a bank, not the customers, and these people were the ones who elected the board and allowed the goings on that occured. They were wiped out with the collapse in stock price, and they got their just deserts. While the heads walked away with huge golden handshakes, the banks are still there.
The hammering of the share holders will continue as the government get a larger slice of the bank as they recapitalise.

So, while I agree that the banks played a large part in the problems we are in, and FF are obviously to blame as well, there is no way we can absolve the general public. After all, we were the ones who elected the government, and we were the ones who overpaid for property.

Liam Byrne

MaceFace wrote: »

This analogy is poor because it involves paying for an item on receipt and the chap in your analogy has told the cashier that he could not afford this.

Why not use the analogy of McDonalds. A person goes into and orders a burger and coke. As usual, he gets the reply "would you like fries with that". He goes for it. Eventually he gets fat and needs a bypass. Would you blame the restuarant for selling him food that would make him fat, or would your reply be more of the line of "hold on fatty, did it not occur to you that the person behind the counter is running a business which involves them taking as much of your money as possible in return for a service. Did you not think that there may be consequences to your actions"

You're missing the same point.

In your example above there is no acknowledgement that the guy said "I'd love to go for it, but I can't afford it". You said "he goes for it", without even referencing the fact that my example - and the personal culpability that you're asking about - are completely covered if you tell whoever is trying to "upsell" that you can't afford it.

The consequences that you're trying to equate are completely different to someone saying, up front, that they can't afford it, and still being pushed to buy it.

damoz

Not sure if this has been linked before, but for anyone who doesnt understand the banking and monetary system i strongly advise watching this. Its in 5 parts - the first 3 (30 mins approx) explain the historical and current system. The last 2 parts explore some possible alternatives.

In my view it is fundamental to understand the system before a proper debate can happen, and alot of posts in this thread dont seem to understand it. As it stands the monetary system in use in the world is destined to collapse in cycles - it cannot self sustain as it is built on a debt model. It has crashed in the past (1929) the present, and will without doubt crash again - unless it is changed completely.

Hope its of some use :

For those who know it all, then please feel free to ignore.

Part 1
[HTML]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVkFb26u9g8[/HTML]

Flamed Diving

In summary, the above video is yet another one of those "scary music" jobs where its all a big scam, etc. Loose Change, basically.

damoz

I respectfully disagree. If you can point out any factual inaccuracies in it i would love to know

Tumbleweed blows by...