Depositors to bail out NZ banks?

[SPman]

So, in the wake of the Cyprus debacle, our esteemed leader reckons that it's a good idea to take depositor's money if the banks stuff up?

Shouldn’t the banks be looking at a deposit insurance scheme of some sort? You’d think so, wouldn’t you?

Remember the so-called “Light Bulb” and “Shower Heads” affairs, in 2008, where National slammed the then-Labour Government as engaging in “Nanny State” politics? National’s Nick Smith said,


“People should be free to use as much water as they like when showering, provided they don’t expect others to pay for their profligacy. User-pays is a far better approach than nanny state.”
So using eco lightbulbs and smaller shower flows, to conserve electricity and water is nasty “Nanny Statism”.


But going into people’s savings accounts; stealing their money; and handing it over to banks – is all hunky dory?

Well, I’m glad that’s settled.


Such a nice man.........

[SMOKEU]

But going into people’s savings accounts; stealing their money; and handing it over to banks – is all hunky dory?



It's the Jewish way of going about things.

[neels]

Fortunately I have considerably more of the bank's money than they have of mine.

So if they were hoping they could to come to me to bail them out then they're fucked.

[martybabe]

Savings are what I have left after everyone else in the world has taken their part of the pie. My savings are mine, I have a bit of an issue with being taxed on the interest on what I've managed to scrape together over the years never mind making it available for thieving, robbing, scumbuckets that think they have a better use for it.

In short, my savings and my old body are all I have that I can call my own, so, John Key, the cypriot government, the Nazi party and anyother mofo that wants it can Feck off . Bail out the banks? bollocks!


Other than that I don't have any feelings on the subject. :angry2:

[Scuba_Steve]

Fortunately I have considerably more of the bank's money than they have of mine.

So if they were hoping they could to come to me to bail them out then they're fucked.

Well that being the case surely the proposed deal would work both ways should you come into trouble :rolleyes:

[neels]

Well that being the case surely the proposed deal would work both ways should you come into trouble :rolleyes:

:killingme

[Zedder]

So, in the wake of the Cyprus debacle, our esteemed leader reckons that it's a good idea to take depositor's money if the banks stuff up?

Shouldn’t the banks be looking at a deposit insurance scheme of some sort? You’d think so, wouldn’t you?

Remember the so-called “Light Bulb” and “Shower Heads” affairs, in 2008, where National slammed the then-Labour Government as engaging in “Nanny State” politics? National’s Nick Smith said,


“People should be free to use as much water as they like when showering, provided they don’t expect others to pay for their profligacy. User-pays is a far better approach than nanny state.”
So using eco lightbulbs and smaller shower flows, to conserve electricity and water is nasty “Nanny Statism”.


But going into people’s savings accounts; stealing their money; and handing it over to banks – is all hunky dory?

Well, I’m glad that’s settled.


Such a nice man.........

A deposit insurance scheme didn't help Cyprus, or stop them trying to "haircut" depositors, nor any other European country and it certainly didn't stop the global finacial crisis.

Incidently, the Labour party went on record as favouring an Open Bank Resolution as well, it's not just a National thing. They're all ratbags.

[Usarka]

Message from John Key: If you have savings you should buy property quick.

Dick.

[Banditbandit]

It's the Jewish way of going about things.

Yeah .. just like the Nazis raided the Jewish Banks ... and bank accounts

[Banditbandit]

Fortunately I have considerably more of the bank's money than they have of mine.

So if they were hoping they could to come to me to bail them out then they're fucked.

Naa .. they just ask for their money, foreclose the mortgage, sell off the property and give you what's left over - if anything ... check your mortgage documents ... all hundred and something pages ...

Even if it's not mortgage, you've borrow against security and they can call it in whenever they like ... and take your security if you can't front with the cash.

Fucking BNZ did it to me when they were in the shit in the late 1980s ... fortunately I could front with the cash and pay them back .. and I've never dealt with them again ...

[neels]

Naa .. they just ask for their money, foreclose the mortgage, sell off the property and give you what's left over - if anything ... check your mortgage documents ... all hundred and something pages ...

Even if it's not mortgage, you've borrow against security and they can call it in whenever they like ... and take your security if you can't front with the cash.

Fucking BNZ did it to me when they were in the shit in the late 1980s ... fortunately I could front with the cash and pay them back .. and I've never dealt with them again ...

You're exactly right, I wonder how many people don't realise that they have the right to call in the debt tomorrow if they see fit.

[mashman]

At least 2 years in the making. (http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/finstab/banking/4430900.html)

[Zedder]

At least 2 years in the making. (http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/finstab/banking/4430900.html)

More than that, the last Labour Government supported it, so prior to their losing to National in 2008.

[terbang]

Switzerland...

[scissorhands]

If the bank has no depositors because of risk of loss, wont said banks collapse from no collateral?
I confused. Savings will become extinct due to risk? Peps will live in fear of losing savings from a traditionally safe place.
Gold will go up, art, collectables, share market will come alive, nightly digs in the garden....

[mashman]

switzerland...

k???????????

[mashman]

More than that, the last Labour Government supported it, so prior to their losing to National in 2008.

Wouldn't surprise me.

[Grizzo]

Banks and politicians = scumbags and motherfuckers.

[Coldrider]

You're exactly right, I wonder how many people don't realise that they have the right to call in the debt tomorrow if they see fit.bang on, great depression in the 30's, fanny may just recently, mortgages get sold to another party, they call them in, then instant transition of wealth from the poor to the already rich.

[mashman]

bang on, great depression in the 30's, fanny may just recently, mortgages get sold to another party, they call them in, then instant transition of wealth from the poor to the already rich.

and the UK govt have decided that they want their bit of the pie (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9947031/Wealthy-homeowners-could-use-state-backed-loans-to-buy-second-homes.html)

[Winston001]

...mortgages get sold to another party, they call them in, then instant transition of wealth from the poor to the already rich.

Well NO.

In fact you've put your finger on the straw which broke the Global Financial Crisis. People who had savings (Japanese, Dutch, Germans, Saudis, Chinese etc etc) put those savings into so-called AAA mortgage securities only to find out the borrowers couldn't repay.

So not only did the borrowers lose/walk away from their homes but millions of savers also lost their money.

That's why its a crisis. If the investors/savers had recovered their money over time they'd be stressed but not devastated. That money would have returned into spending and jobs but it is gone for all time. Result - the people in the rich nations are substantially poorer so they cannot spend.

[Winston001]

Just for the sake of clarity, nobody has become rich from the GFC. There might be a few counter-cyclical investors who did well but they are rare.

When the world economy was booming, bankers flourished as did some fund managers. When the GFC hit many of them ended up on the street. No job. No gold. Nadda. A few at the top survived.

The whole point of the GFC is it hit the well-off as hard as the rest of us. The difference is they had stuff they could sell to get by.

The money lost in the GFC is gone. That is why a few of the big economies are printing money - to replace what was lost - but it is a desperate move. It will all flatten out someday possibly 2018.

[Winston001]

My savings are mine....

In short, my savings and my old body are all I have that I can call my own, so, John Key, the cypriot government, the Nazi party and anyother mofo that wants it can Feck off . Bail out the banks? bollocks!


Other than that I don't have any feelings on the subject. :angry2:

I agree and I'm sure everyone else does too.

But...

Lets imagine the bank which holds your savings was going down the gurgler. You'll either wait years to see even a small part of your money, or never see it at all.

Instead all bank depositors take a haircut - say 10% but that means you get most of your money out.

What would you choose?

[jonbuoy]

Just for the sake of clarity, nobody has become rich from the GFC. There might be a few counter-cyclical investors who did well but they are rare.

When the world economy was booming, bankers flourished as did some fund managers. When the GFC hit many of them ended up on the street. No job. No gold. Nadda. A few at the top survived.

The whole point of the GFC is it hit the well-off as hard as the rest of us. The difference is they had stuff they could sell to get by.

The money lost in the GFC is gone. That is why a few of the big economies are printing money - to replace what was lost - but it is a desperate move. It will all flatten out someday possibly 2018.

Yup. A fair few of the booms instant bilionaires have lost everything (everything being a relative term when your a billionaire, they will still be comfortably well off). A lot of multi millionaires and billionaires dont actually have that much cash. Its all tied up in investments and assets- being worth a billion on paper doesnt mean you have a billion in the bank. If you were to theoretically liquidise all your assets (house, car, home contents) you would be worth a lot more than you have available in cash.

Dont get me wrong - No one is feeling sorry for the poor billionaires that have been hit hard but they have been hit- its all relative.

[swbarnett]

Instead all bank depositors take a haircut - say 10% but that means you get most of your money out.
As long as the wankers that managed the bank into crisis are out on their ear with not one red cent of golden handshake. I don't see that happen.

Part of me would rather see the banks collapse. The whole system is flawed and doomed to failure anyway.

[jim.cox]

What would you choose?


1: gold - the real stuff, in my hot hand, not dodgy paper certificates from some company

2: land - but only if not mortgaged

3: timber - a "growing" investment

works for me

[BMWST?]

isnt this how it is supposed to work anyway?Ie the bank lensds you some money cos they actually have some money to lend.Not some speculative thing that its all just figures written on a balance sheet?

[mashman]

The money lost in the GFC is gone.

Where did it go?

[Zedder]

isnt this how it is supposed to work anyway?Ie the bank lensds you some money cos they actually have some money to lend.Not some speculative thing that its all just figures written on a balance sheet?

Not under the Fractionalised Reserve Banking system.

[Zedder]

Where did it go?

Into the banking system version of IOUs etc.

[Ocean1]

I agree and I'm sure everyone else does too.

But...

Lets imagine the bank which holds your savings was going down the gurgler. You'll either wait years to see even a small part of your money, or never see it at all.

Instead all bank depositors take a haircut - say 10% but that means you get most of your money out.

What would you choose?

I'd choose to have the bank pay for it's own insurance against it's own poor performance. And if that meant they felt the need to increase their charges then I'd be looking around to see which banks were more assured of their future performance.

[Zedder]

I'd choose to have the bank pay for it's own insurance against it's own poor performance. And if that meant they felt the need to increase their charges then I'd be looking around to see which banks were more assured of their future performance.

Yep, looks good.

[mashman]

Into the banking system version of IOUs etc.

If that's the case. Why did they require a bailout?

[Zedder]

If that's the case. Why did they require a bailout?

In a nutshell, the IOUs were IOUed to the max and weren't really worth anything.

The "smart arses" in the finance sector played around and on-sold debts until they weren't recognisable as the original. It ended up as $863 trillion which was way over the value of all economic activity in the world.

[mashman]

In a nutshell, the IOUs were IOUed to the max and weren't really worth anything.

The "smart arses" in the finance sector played around and on-sold debts until they weren't recognisable as the original. It ended up as $863 trillion which was way over the value of all economic activity in the world.

So you mean that the banks bought "products" and never paid for them? Products of such rarity and importance that they only ever increased in value?

8.36 trillion isn't that bad really as the banks only needed a $700 billion bail out and they've paid that back already. Dunno what all the fuss is about. I dunno, people not paying their debts back eh,... it'll be the end of us.

[Zedder]

So you mean that the banks bought "products" and never paid for them? Products of such rarity and importance that they only ever increased in value?

8.36 trillion isn't that bad really as the banks only needed a $700 billion bail out and they've paid that back already. Dunno what all the fuss is about. I dunno, people not paying their debts back eh,... it'll be the end of us.

No, the "products" were subprime mortgages which were sold then on-sold then on-sold etc.

Look up Credit Default Swaps and Collateral Debt Obligations if you're interested, I'm off for a motorbike ride.

[flyingcrocodile46]

Well NO.

In fact you've put your finger on the straw which broke the Global Financial Crisis. People who had savings (Japanese, Dutch, Germans, Saudis, Chinese etc etc) put those savings into so-called AAA mortgage securities only to find out the borrowers couldn't repay.

So not only did the borrowers lose/walk away from their homes but millions of savers also lost their money.

That's why its a crisis. If the investors/savers had recovered their money over time they'd be stressed but not devastated. That money would have returned into spending and jobs but it is gone for all time. Result - the people in the rich nations are substantially poorer so they cannot spend.

The property/houses are the tangible asset (product). Their real underlying value doesn't change a bit. It's only the paper money which we associate with it that changes in value. It's all an illusion that we are duped into believing.


Just for the sake of clarity, nobody has become rich from the GFC. There might be a few counter-cyclical investors who did well but they are rare.

When the world economy was booming, bankers flourished as did some fund managers. When the GFC hit many of them ended up on the street. No job. No gold. Nadda. A few at the top survived.

The whole point of the GFC is it hit the well-off as hard as the rest of us. The difference is they had stuff they could sell to get by.

The money lost in the GFC is gone. That is why a few of the big economies are printing money - to replace what was lost - but it is a desperate move. It will all flatten out someday possibly 2018.

The theoretical (book keeping)money is gone. Not the underlying printed money (which is only a percentage of the total accounted money).

Lots of those responsible were paid unbelievably massive performance bonuses for creating the GFC and were paid from the bailout money in the first instance. Some took advantage of that to play Bear with the real product upon with the fraud was perpetrated by buying up the worthless loan bundles for 10 cents on the dollar to acquire many of the underlying products (the properties which mostly devalued by well less than 50%). That was the big game (much like that played when the bankers deliberately collapsed the US and world economy at the start of the great depression). We are slow learners. They must be ROTFLTFAO@US.


Where did it go?

it never existed. It was theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using an original $1 which a depositer entrusted with the bankers in return for a 1 or 2% return while the bankers themselves are skiming a big chunk of the interest that they charge on each and every transaction using the theoretical money. FFS doesn't anyone know this shit :facepalm:.


In a nutshell, the IOUs were IOUed to the max and weren't really worth anything.

The "smart arses" in the finance sector played around and on-sold debts until they weren't recognisable as the original. It ended up as $863 trillion which was way over the value of all economic activity in the world.


Ok so some have an idea of how Banking really works.

You do know that this is all very legal and is actively supported by international govts in exchange for access to loans from the world central banks (which are paid for by enslaving us taxpayers to pay back exorbitant rates of interest on top of the loan itself).

But the real kicker is that once again it is done using freshly minted play money which is underwritten by theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using an original $1 which a depositer entrusted with the bankers in return for a 1 or 2% return while the bankers themselves are skiming a big chunk of the interest that they charge on each and every transaction using the theoretical money.

I swear that we are the dumbest motherfucking animal on the planet.:facepalm:

[mashman]

No, the "products" were subprime mortgages which were sold then on-sold then on-sold etc.

Look up Credit Default Swaps and Collateral Debt Obligations if you're interested, I'm off for a motorbike ride.

You mentioned IOU's before. I don't class something as having been sold until the paperwork has been done and the cash has been paid. But I understood what you meant and my reply was somewhat tongue in cheek.


it never existed. It was theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using an original $1 which a depositer entrusted with the bankers in return for a 1 or 2% return FFS doesn't anyone know this shit :facepalm:.

I swear that we are the dumbest motherfucking animal on the planet.:facepalm:

Standard broker practice n'est pas? Buy it and shift it for a profit before you pay for it on the promise that the person you've "sold" it to is going to pay you, so that you can then pay your debt. Rinse and repeat as you have mentioned and it becomes a chain of IOU's (assets) that will eventually be paid for, by someone, somewhere, if they could only remember where it originally came from. That and as they now have an asset worth $X, they can fractional reserve the fuck out of it and lend out even more money against the debt, I mean asset.

We're not... but everyone else is :innocent:

EDIT: neels posted a brilliant illustration a few of weeks ago (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/156945-The-value-of-money-has-dropped-by-two-thirds-in-30-years?p=1130509922#post1130509922)

[Zedder]

[QUOTE=mashman;1130520200]You mentioned IOU's before. I don't class something as having been sold until the paperwork has been done and the cash has been paid. But I understood what you meant and my reply was somewhat tongue in cheek.


Fair enough, I was just clarifying the IOU bit wif proper info and wasn't getting at ya even though you're a midgie raker...

[mashman]

Fair enough, I was just clarifying the IOU bit wif proper info and wasn't getting at ya even though you're a midgie raker...

:rofl: WTF is a midgie raker? I used to be a midgie magnet however. Argyll midges... little fockers.

[Zedder]

:rofl: WTF is a midgie raker? I used to be a midgie magnet however. Argyll midges... little fockers.

A rubbish sifter.http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/midgie

[jonbuoy]

You can create your own money, if your house is perceived to be worth more than it was 10 years ago you can re-mortgage. Voila 100k pulled out of thin air. Then the price plummets back to its 10 year level and you loose your job can't make the payments and that 100k disappears even though you spent it already. Bank can't get it back by selling your house anymore.

[Winston001]

A deposit insurance scheme didn't help Cyprus, or stop them trying to "haircut" depositors, nor any other European country and it certainly didn't stop the global finacial crisis.

Incidently, the Labour party went on record as favouring an Open Bank Resolution as well, it's not just a National thing. They're all ratbags.


I'd choose to have the bank pay for it's own insurance against it's own poor performance. .


Yeah good idea except mostly it didn't work - as Zedder spoints out.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Scheme in the US did work but only because the government stood behind it with more funds.

The idea of a guarantee is good but there is a problem - the guaranteeing insurance company/fund can go broke itself.

Instead there are the Basel II (now III) banking rules which require banks to have enough in reserve to meet a crisis. You don't need a guarantee if your bank is careful.

Just as a matter of interest, I remember the recession of the late 1980s. The BNZ technically failed. Most banks were hurt badly, except for the National Bank. NB had lost its market share, shrank because of strict lending rules, and was laughed at. But in the recession NB hardly lost a dollar or a client.

That is the sort of bank you want.

[jonbuoy]

Yeah good idea except mostly it didn't work - as Zedder spoints out.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Scheme in the US did work but only because the government stood behind it with more funds.

The idea of a guarantee is good but there is a problem - the guaranteeing insurance company/fund can go broke itself.

Instead there are the Basel II (now III) banking rules which require banks to have enough in reserve to meet a crisis. You don't need a guarantee if your bank is careful.

Just as a matter of interest, I remember the recession of the late 1980s. The BNZ technically failed. Most banks were hurt badly, except for the National Bank. NB had lost its market share, shrank because of strict lending rules, and was laughed at. But in the recession NB hardly lost a dollar or a client.

That is the sort of bank you want.

Lloyds UK had a similar conservative lending strategy and werent directly hit by bad debt so much until the UK government pretty much forced them to buy up banks that had lent stupidly. Are they still offering 110% mortgages in NZ?

[Winston001]

Lots of those responsible were paid unbelievably massive performance bonuses for creating the GFC and were paid from the bailout money in the first instance.....


It was theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans made using theoretical money that was yet to be made from the repayments of earlier loans .... made using an original $1 which a depositer entrusted with the bankers in return for a 1 or 2% return while the bankers themselves are skiming a big chunk of the interest that they charge on each and every transaction using the theoretical money.

FFS doesn't anyone know this shit :facepalm:.

Yes, plenty of us do know this stuff. Not the average person admittedly but then why should they? It is not possible - or necessary to be an expert in all things.

The thing is our financial system has been in place and evolved over the past 800 years when commerce between nations got started. It ain't going to change. I think there have been four recessions in my lifetime and the recoveries have always led to a better quality of life for most people.

[Ocean1]

Yeah good idea except mostly it didn't work - as Zedder spoints out.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Scheme in the US did work but only because the government stood behind it with more funds.

The idea of a guarantee is good but there is a problem - the guaranteeing insurance company/fund can go broke itself.

Instead there are the Basel II (now III) banking rules which require banks to have enough in reserve to meet a crisis. You don't need a guarantee if your bank is careful.

Hmmm, yet it's difficult to assess bank's behaviour, and therefore the level of risk against which to consider their returns on my money. Think I'll stick with more transparent investment vehicles.


Just as a matter of interest, I remember the recession of the late 1980s. The BNZ technically failed. Most banks were hurt badly, except for the National Bank. NB had lost its market share, shrank because of strict lending rules, and was laughed at. But in the recession NB hardly lost a dollar or a client.

That is the sort of bank you want.

Yeah, used to be you might get a mortgage if you banked exclusively with the bank in question and your credit record was good. I spent most of the 80's maintaining credible records with three of them, and by the time that was all in line most of 'em were reverse mugging anyone not actually a corpse.

As for NB, good example of prudent management no doubt, so explain why they didn't buy out ANZ.

[Winston001]

As for NB, good example of prudent management no doubt, so explain why they didn't buy out ANZ.

One of the examples of National Bank's prudence was buying the Rural Bank in about 1991. Farmers are committed borrowers, their livelihood is on the line and they pay what they owe.

NB however was always small. It was owned by Lloyds Bank of London and for reasons lost in the mists of time, Lloyds decided to sell. I suspect they needed the money.

ANZ by comparison is much larger bank despite tough patches in 1988 and 1997. Like all busineses they wanted to broaden their base and National Banks expertise in farming made good sense.

[BMWST?]

You can create your own money, if your house is perceived to be worth more than it was 10 years ago you can re-mortgage. Voila 100k pulled out of thin air. Then the price plummets back to its 10 year level and you loose your job can't make the payments and that 100k disappears even though you spent it already. Bank can't get it back by selling your house anymore.

they wont care if they need to sell your house for only 100 k to get their 100 k back which they can if you still owe them $1

[Winston001]

they wont care if they need to sell your house for only 100 k to get their 100 k back which they can if you still owe them $1

No no no.

There are very strict rules around mortgagee sales. Any money left after the mortgagee is repaid goes to the mortgagor (owner). That is extremely rare because by that time the debt is way above the sale value.

Banks hate mortgagee sales because its a complicated process, it costs them money, and there is always a risk of bad publicity.

I've dealt with half a dozen mortgagee sales in 30 years but on the other hand helped dozens of people sell on the market when they owed more than what they got at sale. Generally the banks write the loss off.

[Zedder]

Yeah good idea except mostly it didn't work - as Zedder spoints out.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Scheme in the US did work but only because the government stood behind it with more funds.

The idea of a guarantee is good but there is a problem - the guaranteeing insurance company/fund can go broke itself.

Instead there are the Basel II (now III) banking rules which require banks to have enough in reserve to meet a crisis. You don't need a guarantee if your bank is careful.

Just as a matter of interest, I remember the recession of the late 1980s. The BNZ technically failed. Most banks were hurt badly, except for the National Bank. NB had lost its market share, shrank because of strict lending rules, and was laughed at. But in the recession NB hardly lost a dollar or a client.

That is the sort of bank you want.

The problem with Basel III is the 6 year implementation period. Also, its critics believe it will stifle banking in general, and allow less risky products like government bonds, which don't require the same capital backing, to flourish dangerously. It's happened before.

Although deposit insurance is not really viable, banks do often increase their security and expand their business by simply buying insurance companies.

[mashman]

The problem with Basel III is the 6 year implementation period. Also, its critics believe it will stifle banking in general, and allow less risky products like government bonds, which don't require the same capital backing, to flourish dangerously. It's happened before.

Although deposit insurance is not really viable, banks do often increase their security and expand their business by simply buying insurance companies.

I can't begin to tell you how comical in itself that sounds. Yes I haven't looked up any details, but FFS they're talking about risk as if it isn't possible to manufacture a situation that can make that risk a reality. It's happened before.

[jonbuoy]

they wont care if they need to sell your house for only 100 k to get their 100 k back which they can if you still owe them $1

That's ok as long as the mortgage is only for a 100k - a lot of people were continuously re-mortgaging to the maximum - ie no free value in the property at all.

[mashman]

Switzerland...

Sport imitating politics:

Leaders Switzerland draw a blank in Cyprus
Cyprus 0-0 Switzerland
The visitors missed the opportunity to stretch their lead at the top of qualifying Group E to four points as they wasted several chances in Nicosia.

[Zedder]

I can't begin to tell you how comical in itself that sounds. Yes I haven't looked up any details, but FFS they're talking about risk as if it isn't possible to manufacture a situation that can make that risk a reality. It's happened before.

Basel III is meant to put things right for the future of banking but apart from taking too long to put into place, it will apparently cause grief for the standard system (commercial banks) by imposing rules that may greatly reduce the ability of banks to carry out their total range of business which isn't just lending.

Government bonds aren't addressed in Basel III and the critics are saying there's a danger of "here we go again" if it isn't sorted out because with the GFC, the real problem lay with the investment banks and hedge funds where traders dreamed up more and more "clever" ways to contravene existing rules on lending.

In short, many in the industry think the wrong people are being targeted and there aren't any rules to stop the ratbags as yet.

[blue rider]

consider this

Matt Tabibi

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/gangster-bankers-too-big-to-jail-20130214


and Elizabeth Warren

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/elizabeth-warren-eric-holder_n_2823618.html


yes, we the citizens of the country, this one here or elsewhere will bail out banks, or else ........lol

[mashman]

Basel III is meant to put things right for the future of banking but apart from taking too long to put into place, it will apparently cause grief for the standard system (commercial banks) by imposing rules that may greatly reduce the ability of banks to carry out their total range of business which isn't just lending.

Government bonds aren't addressed in Basel III and the critics are saying there's a danger of "here we go again" if it isn't sorted out because with the GFC, the real problem lay with the investment banks and hedge funds where traders dreamed up more and more "clever" ways to contravene existing rules on lending.

In short, many in the industry think the wrong people are being targeted and there aren't any rules to stop the ratbags as yet.

:killingme... you should take that shit to the comedy shack. With politicians in the pockets of the highest bidder it's only a matter of time before we're back where we are now. It happens with regular monotony (every 10/15 years) and Basel III and any other so called obvious and sensible rules and regulations aren't going to help avoid it. Systems are there to be rorted. As per blue rider's links, the "common man" does it and gets hammered for it and those who rort billions get away scot free... likely because of campaign contributions. There's something seriously wrong where that is the case and is isn't limited to the banks and their activities. EVERYONE who thinks they can get away with it will try. This is the reality of our "new world" and it isn't going to change coz the financial system can't be allowed to fail. The authorities can't monitor everyone... well they could but that'd be a hell of a world to live in (and is)... and if you are (or "own") the authorities, then who's monitoring you? Tis BS... don't, don't, don't, don't, don't believe the hype woooerrrrrrrrr

[mashman]

consider this

Matt Tabibi

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/gangster-bankers-too-big-to-jail-20130214


and Elizabeth Warren

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/elizabeth-warren-eric-holder_n_2823618.html


yes, we the citizens of the country, this one here or elsewhere will bail out banks, or else ........lol

Weez gotz to be gud little servants fur r massers. Tis amusing that the banks get blamed or we get blamed or business gets blamed and no one mentions the real elephant in the room i.e. the mechanism that allows, and always has allowed, the rorting to take place. Instead they believe that rules and regulations are gonna save them :facepalm:

[Zedder]

:killingme... you should take that shit to the comedy shack. With politicians in the pockets of the highest bidder it's only a matter of time before we're back where we are now. It happens with regular monotony (every 10/15 years) and Basel III and any other so called obvious and sensible rules and regulations aren't going to help avoid it. Systems are there to be rorted. As per blue rider's links, the "common man" does it and gets hammered for it and those who rort billions get away scot free... likely because of campaign contributions. There's something seriously wrong where that is the case and is isn't limited to the banks and their activities. EVERYONE who thinks they can get away with it will try. This is the reality of our "new world" and it isn't going to change coz the financial system can't be allowed to fail. The authorities can't monitor everyone... well they could but that'd be a hell of a world to live in (and is)... and if you are (or "own") the authorities, then who's monitoring you? Tis BS... don't, don't, don't, don't, don't believe the hype woooerrrrrrrrr

LOL, who says I believe the hype? I was just clarifying the situation for you 'cos you didn't look anything up remember?

Also, if you look at my first post in this thread I was doubting the idea of the depositors insurance scheme etc as being the answer to the problem.

[mashman]

LOL, who says I believe the hype? I was just clarifying the situation for you 'cos you didn't look anything up remember?

Also, if you look at my first post in this thread I was doubting the idea of the depositors insurance scheme etc as being the answer to the problem.

Oh you do. You know you do :shifty:. Ta muchly, but it isn't anything new really is it.

You did indeedy... and my post was generic, not aimed at anyone in particular and for some reason Public Enemy popped into ma heed. You should still take that shit to the stage though.

[Winston001]

Instead they believe that rules and regulations are gonna save them :facepalm:

Yes, rules and regulations do save people. The dispensing of medicines is regulated to protect people, medical procedures are regulated, land ownership is regulated, food safety is regulated, driving on our roads is regulated. That is how a society works, by establishing sets of rules and laws to knock off the rough edges of the unscrupulous.

The criticisms made are that all rules/regs become out of date, inefficient, difficult to implement or non-existant. Sometimes our leaders simply get it wrong - the elastic building regs which led to leaky homes is a classic example.

[mashman]

Yes, rules and regulations do save people. The dispensing of medicines is reglated to protect people, medical procedures are regulated, land ownership is regulated, food safety is regulated, driving on our roads is regulated. That is how a society works, by establishing sets of rules and laws to knock off the rough edges of the unscrupulous.

The criticisms made are that all rules/regs become out of date, inefficient, difficult to implement or non-existant. Sometimes our leaders simply get it wrong - the elastic building regs which led to leaky homes is a classic example.

True, rules and regs are useful in many cases, well sensible process that is, and they do become out of date as the "unscrupulous" push the boundaries of the rules and in many cases lobby to have them changed. The only way we find out that they're out of date is by catching those who have pushed those boundaries too far. Tis just a shame that those boundary pushers are generally looking to save themselves money at the expense of others. In all honesty a sensible process shouldn't allow for any boundary pushing and should need absolute minimal tweaking to bring it up to date. Sorry, getting all unrealistic again ;).

[Banditbandit]

It's only the paper money which we associate with it that changes in value.

In a nutshell ... this is it ... it's all paper ... all a stack of paper waiting to fall when people decide it's just paper and not worth shit ...

[Akzle]

But going into people’s savings accounts; stealing their money; and handing it over to banks – is all hunky dory?

Well, I’m glad that’s settled.
you voted for it. suck it up.


Savings are what I have left after everyone else in the world has taken their part of the pie. My savings are mine, I have a bit of an issue with being taxed on the interest on what I've managed to scrape together over the years never mind making it available for thieving, robbing, scumbuckets that think they have a better use for it.

In short, my savings and my old body are all I have that I can call my own, so, John Key, the cypriot government, the Nazi party and anyother mofo that wants it can Feck off . Bail out the banks? bollocks!
unfortunately. out of everything you said and think you have, "your old body" is the sum total.

y'see, funny story, but you don't have "money" you may have accrued "legal tender" - but that aint worth shit, so you can just ignore it.
second, like, you've been representing a corporate fiction, to accrue said credit (/legal tender)
the bank account isn't yours (it's opened through your NAME), the paper isn't yours, the game isn't yours. so you loose, when they change the rules. you can tell them to fuck off all you like (believe me, i do) but when the dudes rock up in the holdens pointing glocks at you, to enforce government policy... who you gonna call?

Yeah .. just like the Nazis raided the Jewish Banks ... and bank accounts
yes, but jews invented ursury, which is pretty much the root cause of ALL THE SHIT that has happened since.
as a race, i believe the world would be better today if young adolf had succeeded in removing them.
there's a reason we put the on foot patrol in the desert for 4 decades, but the fuckers came back, and " 'murica, hoo rah!" gave their full support.
rothschilds, goldman sachs, rich jews, larry silverstein and his 5 billion dollar terrorist insurance (on property "worth less than 3") google this shit.
fucking jewry.

If the bank has no depositors because of risk of loss, wont said banks collapse from no collateral?
I confused. Savings will become extinct due to risk? Peps will live in fear of losing savings from a traditionally safe place.
Gold will go up, art, collectables, share market will come alive, nightly digs in the garden....
banks already suffer from a lack of collateral. in the form of: they don't fucking own anything - except the collateral provided by the sign-nature's of the millions of corporations (corporate fiction=legal person=the name on "your" driving license) and their collective promise to go and be slaves for the remainder of their life to fund the game of commerce.

good fucking deal.

if you want something worth anything - work out what is.
newton overvalued gold, the fed and the "commonwealth" snatched the gold off those untrustworthy subjects of the state, for, y'know, safekeeping, and now gold is "worth" 1800 USD an oz. compare with only 10 years ago when it was worth less than 200.
so... what's it worth? to me, fuckall, i can't eat it, it's no good for casting bullets and it's a bit of a waste to use as fishing sinkers.

what's changed?


Just for the sake of clarity, nobody has become rich from the GFC. There might be a few counter-cyclical investors who did well but they are rare.
no, but the 3 guys who bought 4 million dollar lambos don't seem to be feeling the pinch too much. bill gates is still paid 200$ PER SECOND to be alive.
but you're right. those poor, poor rich folk must really be suffering through the recession.

1: gold - the real stuff, in my hot hand, not dodgy paper certificates from some company

2: land - but only if not mortgaged

3: timber - a "growing" investment


consider that anything is only worth somewhere in between: what you're willing to sell it for, and; what someone is willing to pay for it. have all the gold you like, after they let the virus loose, i'll value my potatoes more.

second, like. you DO NOT OWN LAND.
in NZ
the crow retains alloidal TITLE, y9ou, at best, can "own" fee simple title.
which doesn't actually mean you own it. infact, there's all sorts of rules (vis "the crown"'s prior right/ higher title) ie, you must pay rates, you may not erect lightning rods, if you discover oil, you don't own it, you can't take groundwater, you can't collect roof water (true story, in some places, because some dick came up with "you're stopping the water from going into the ground, fucking up the eco system (as if the 20 truckloads of concrete, tonneage of wood, paint and other house-ly things is so good for the environment))

so yes. you don't own land. ever.


isnt this how it is supposed to work anyway?Ie the bank lensds you some money cos they actually have some money to lend.Not some speculative thing that its all just figures written on a balance sheet?
bahahahahahhahhaha:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::r ofl: :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

The property/houses are the tangible asset (product).

perpetrated by buying up the worthless loan bundles for 10 cents on the dollar to acquire many of the underlying products

You do know that this is all very legal and is actively supported by international govts in exchange for access to loans from the world central banks (which are paid for by enslaving us taxpayers to pay back exorbitant rates of interest on top of the loan itself).

I swear that we are the dumbest motherfucking animal on the planet.:facepalm:
:drinksin:
1) as above
2) similar to above, but that again, the banks only ever hold title, the position people subjugate themselves to as a mortgagee, is that of a semi-interested party, with fuckall rights, and a stack of obligations to stand-under, due to the bankers lien. which goes against the title, before you sign for it.
technically, when the mortgage is up, the lien is removed, in practice, fuck knows.
3) i do know that.
4) as a whole, "good society" - yes, they are. as thinking individuals, some of us are quite neat.


The Federal Deposit Insurance Scheme in the US did work but only because the government stood behind it with more funds. *borrowed from china

The idea of a guarantee is good but there is a problem - the guaranteeing insurance company/fund can go broke itself.
"crown underwriting" and re-insurance.
making money off money off money (none of which exists and all comes at the expense of the denizens' sweat)
y'know in anti-jewism/ islam, that shit's illegal?


Yes, plenty of us do know this stuff. Not the average person admittedly but then why should they?

The thing is our financial system has been in place and evolved over the past 800 years when commerce between nations got started. It ain't going to change. I think there have been four recessions in my lifetime and the recoveries have always led to a better quality of life for most people.
why should they? don't know. if your society tells you you're expected to spend the best 40 years of your life slaving "for the good of the nation", shouldn't you be allowed to ask why?

i don't think much "evolution" has happened, quite teh contrary like, devolution, well, for the average dick and jane, the rich jews are still rich.

a better quality of life? rly? by what fucking yardstick is this? have you seen the poverty in this country?
(comparatively speaking, but NZ is touted as a socialist state and a "first world nation", which is BS with the amount of homeless et al.)

No no no.

There are very strict rules around mortgagee sales. Any money left after the mortgagee is repaid goes to the mortgagor (owner). That is extremely rare because by that time the debt is way above the sale value.

no. no. no.

as above, it's all title and liens, there is no "owner"
and bascially, GFY, when "the bank" wants to take your shit.


(commercial banks) by imposing rules that may greatly reduce the ability of banks to carry out their total range of business which isn't just lending.
there is no lending. they don't have anything to lend. lending you someone elses money would be unlawful, without that person's agreement.

when you get a loan/ "mortgage", they make that shit up, your SIGNATURE creates the "credit" (debt)

fucking neat deal eh? my signature is worth as much as house (if i was part of your society) fucking sign some traffic infringement notices and shit, get rid of them.

and, as above, the account is opened through "your name", it really, really, is a big game, this commerce. the government is banking on you.


This is the reality of our "new world" and it isn't going to change coz the financial system can't be allowed to fail.

The authorities can't monitor everyone... well they could but that'd be a hell of a world to live in (and is)... and if you are (or "own") the authorities, then who's monitoring you?

i seriously think it wont be too long before micro chipping at birth (for poor people, which is you all) - everything can be linked to the one account, your pay, your fines, court stuff, the cops wont even need to pull you over, just drive past a microwave scanner and *bing* it's racked up to your corporate account. tax, work, everything "so easy". go shopping, don't need cashiers, again, an RFID reader at the door...

and the authorities don't need to monitor everyone - just the one's making noise about their silent black helicopters and using tinfoil hats to prevent brain-scanning and thought control (or any dissident, really) keep them under the thumb (poor) and that'll scare the middle class enough to keep turning up for work, they get paid, you get a puppy, everyone's happy. innit.

[mashman]

i seriously think it wont be too long before micro chipping at birth (for poor people, which is you all) - everything can be linked to the one account, your pay, your fines, court stuff, the cops wont even need to pull you over, just drive past a microwave scanner and *bing* it's racked up to your corporate account. tax, work, everything "so easy". go shopping, don't need cashiers, again, an RFID reader at the door...

and the authorities don't need to monitor everyone - just the one's making noise about their silent black helicopters and using tinfoil hats to prevent brain-scanning and thought control (or any dissident, really) keep them under the thumb (poor) and that'll scare the middle class enough to keep turning up for work, they get paid, you get a puppy, everyone's happy. innit.
[/COLOR]

Aye, it'll likely be socially justifiable at some point or other. I often wondered if it would come in the guise of preventing terrorism. If you ain't chipped, then you'll be tagged as a terrorist. Why else would you not be chipped? Praps it'll be Minority Report styleez, dunno, but I agree, something is gonna be put in place to keep the good people being good people.

It was reported to me a couple of months ago that tin foil hats would actually amplify thoughts and not dampen them. Some nerdy stoners proveded it supposedly. The kids'll be happy getting a puppy, they've always wanted one, but I shan't, not whilst we line in concrete jungle.

[Zedder]

[QUOTE=Akzle;1130521022][COLOR="#139922"]there is no lending. they don't have anything to lend. lending you someone elses money would be unlawful, without that person's agreement.

when you get a loan/ "mortgage", they make that shit up, your SIGNATURE creates the "credit" (debt)

fucking neat deal eh? my signature is worth as much as house (if i was part of your society) fucking sign some traffic infringement notices and shit, get rid of them.

and, as above, the account is opened through "your name", it really, really, is a big game, this commerce. the government is banking on you.



Do some reading about Fractional Reserve Banking.

[Akzle]

@flying croc
how would it not work like that in nz? you register a live berth, (incorporate the corpse) and play the game of commerce, it's all world banks now-a-daze, the slave system is alive and well down under.

[Akzle]

Do some reading about Fractional Reserve Banking.

why the fuck would i read about that shit. i've read too much shit. my head is full of shit (cue maha, he's not that clever and needs this shit handed to him.)

the whole thing has to come back to there is no money. they're not lending anything. (fractional deposit lending=frb) the "wealth" they're lending against: DOESN'T EXIST.
and THEY'RE NOT LENDING ANYTHING.
they're creating "credit" (debt) against your corporate person's ledger.

YOU, acting as the corporate person, are actually creating the "wealth" they're gambling with.
(unfortunately you don't get a say, as teh "legal"-enators get to make decisions about their legal tender. how and where it's used, what you can and can't buy with it, how much (as a %) must be payed back to the legal-enators ("the crown") for the priviledge of using their legal tender paper currency shiite.)

good fucking deal.

[Zedder]

why the fuck would i read about that shit. i've read too much shit. my head is full of shit (cue maha, he's not that clever and needs this shit handed to him.)

the whole thing has to come back to there is no money. they're not lending anything. (fractional deposit lending=frb) the "wealth" they're lending against: DOESN'T EXIST.
and THEY'RE NOT LENDING ANYTHING.
they're creating "credit" (debt) against your corporate person's ledger.

YOU, acting as the corporate person, are actually creating the "wealth" they're gambling with.
(unfortunately you don't get a say, as teh "legal"-enators get to make decisions about their legal tender. how and where it's used, what you can and can't buy with it, how much (as a %) must be payed back to the legal-enators ("the crown") for the priviledge of using their legal tender paper currency shiite.)

good fucking deal.

Well if you don't want to read about the "shit" then at least lay off the drugs which may cure the "shit" in your head.

As for the other things you wrote about, I'll leave it for the others to respond 'cos it's hard to write while laughing so much...

[Winston001]

Here is an extremely shortened explanation of Basel III.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/sep/13/basel-iii-the-main-points

The objective is to require banks to have enough investments in reserve that a run on the banks will not cause a collapse. As Zedder has said, some banks are not happy because establishing proper Tier I, Tier II, and Tier II reserves means the banks are (in their opinion) severely restricted in the amount they can lend.

Frankly given the fiasco in world banking - the current Cypriot panic is an object lesson - the sooner banks move to a conservative position, the better off we will all be.

In fairness the Australian (and NZ) banks are above all of this because they adopted careful policies before the GFC.

[Zedder]

Here is an extremely shortened explanation of Basel III.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/sep/13/basel-iii-the-main-points

The objective is to require banks to have enough investments in reserve that a run on the banks will not cause a collapse. As Zedder has said, some banks are not happy because establishing proper Tier I, Tier II, and Tier II reserves means the banks are (in their opinion) severely restricted in the amount they can lend.

Frankly given the fiasco in world banking - the current Cypriot panic is an object lesson - the sooner banks move to a conservative position, the better off we will all be.

In fairness the Australian (and NZ) banks are above all of this because they adopted careful policies before the GFC.

I actually wrote about some bankers fearing the new Basel III rules "may greatly restrict the ability of banks to carry out their total range of business which isn't just lending."

[Naki Rat]

No, the "products" were subprime mortgages which were sold then on-sold then on-sold etc.

Look up Credit Default Swaps and Collateral Debt Obligations if you're interested, I'm off for a motorbike ride.Or get hold of a copy of The Big Short (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Short) by Michael Lewis. His take on how the GFC came about is an interesting read, and worrying due to the lessons that it is now obvious have still not been learnt in many cases :facepalm:

This interview (http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2550245/business-with-rod-oram.asx) with Rod Oram on Nat Radio yesterday is one of the most straight shooting views of the Open Bank Resolution I have heard. OBR from about 5:00 minutes in but the GDP discussion prior is worth listening to as background info.

[Akzle]

Well if you don't want to read about the "shit" then at least lay off the drugs which may cure the "shit" in your head.
err, in a nutshell, the banks must have a certain amount, say a fraction of a relativistic percent, of pretending stuff, before they can pretend to give you pretending stuff?

what did i miss?


... Michael Lewis. His take on how the GFC came about is an interesting read, and worrying due to the lessons that it is now obvious have still not been learnt in many cases :facepalm:...

did it inklude learnign teh correkt speeling of learned?

[Zedder]

Or get hold of a copy of The Big Short (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Short) by Michael Lewis. His take on how the GFC came about is an interesting read, and worrying due to the lessons that it is now obvious have still not been learnt in many cases :facepalm:

This interview (http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2550245/business-with-rod-oram.asx) with Rod Oram on Nat Radio yesterday is one of the most straight shooting views of the Open Bank Resolution I have heard. OBR from about 5:00 minutes in but the GDP discussion prior is worth listening to as background info.

Good interview alright, I like his articles too. Cheers.

[Twiglet]

So ditch your foreign owned high street bank, join a NZ owned and operated credit union instead. Credit unions are cooperatives - owned by the customer with full bank services. http://www.nzacu.org.nz/

[jonbuoy]

Here is an extremely shortened explanation of Basel III.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/sep/13/basel-iii-the-main-points

The objective is to require banks to have enough investments in reserve that a run on the banks will not cause a collapse. As Zedder has said, some banks are not happy because establishing proper Tier I, Tier II, and Tier II reserves means the banks are (in their opinion) severely restricted in the amount they can lend.

Frankly given the fiasco in world banking - the current Cypriot panic is an object lesson - the sooner banks move to a conservative position, the better off we will all be.

In fairness the Australian (and NZ) banks are above all of this because they adopted careful policies before the GFC.

It's all sensible lending as long as house prices keep rising. I don't think any country can escape the effects of the GFC. If house prices fall in NZ or AU the banks will have toxic debt. EU and US are Chinas biggest customer- has to have a knock on effect.

[Akzle]

So ditch your foreign owned high street bank, join a NZ owned and operated credit union instead. Credit unions are cooperatives - owned by the customer with full bank services. http://www.nzacu.org.nz/

they're still banks. it's still dealing with "money" and still go through the nzrb. same shit, different label (but the profit stays in nz)

what we really need is an upsurge of sharia banking.
a literally independent bank, kim dotcom could probably afford it. that

[Banditbandit]

yes, but jews invented ursury, which is pretty much the root cause of ALL THE SHIT that has happened since.
as a race, i believe the world would be better today if young adolf had succeeded in removing them.
there's a reason we put the on foot patrol in the desert for 4 decades, but the fuckers came back, and " 'murica, hoo rah!" gave their full support.
rothschilds, goldman sachs, rich jews, larry silverstein and his 5 billion dollar terrorist insurance (on property "worth less than 3") google this shit.
fucking jewry

Jeez .. that's such racist shit !!! And wrong !!!

Way back (before 1000AD) the Jewish population of Europe were forced into money-lending by the Christians .. as "usury" is forbidden in the bible (you can't lend moey to your brother) - so if Christians could not lend money to Christians ... Jews could do it ... and Jews were forbidden from many other professions, money-lending was about al the Jews were allowed to do in Christian countries.

This did not stop the Church itself lending money - and the rates the church and other Christians charged were usually much higher than the jews charged ...

[Winston001]

It's all sensible lending as long as house prices keep rising. I don't think any country can escape the effects of the GFC. If house prices fall in NZ or AU the banks will have toxic debt. EU and US are Chinas biggest customer- has to have a knock on effect.

Agreed but all systems of value and exchange are at risk in a disaster. There is no perfect protection - certainly not gold under the bed when food and shelter are critical to life.

The best that can be done is for banks being careful to whom they lend, spread the lending across business, residential, and personal, and to hold reserves for the rainy day.

[Winston001]

I do think we forget the critical driver of the GFC which was the ballooning of wealth throughout the world 2001 - 2007. Some of the wealth came from successful Chinese/Arab/Indian businesses (electronics oil etc) and they had to invest their profits somewhere. They looked to European and American banks because the Euro and the $US were solid safe currencies.

The banks became overwhelmed with money flowing in and nowhere to lend it. So they made it easier for us to borrow - and we did.

In hindsight this should have been regulated by governments but what government wants to introduce more red tape when the economy is booming?! Leaving us with the GFC and much misery.

[Naki Rat]

did it inklude learnign teh correkt speeling of learned?
Learnt! (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/learnt?s=t) Now go crawl back into your burrow :motu:

[Ocean1]

they're still banks. it's still dealing with "money" and still go through the nzrb. same shit, different label (but the profit stays in nz)

Their activities are subject to reserve bank supervision, but while they’re subject to some of the regulatory framework under which banks operate they don’t enjoy some of the benefits the govt extend to banks either. From a customer’s point of view they supply most of the services of a bank but, in fact they’re different shit entirely, they’re owned by their clients/depositors and there’s no profit to stay or go.

[Akzle]

Jeez .. that's such racist shit !!! And wrong !!!

Way back (before 1000AD) the Jewish population of Europe were forced into money-lending by the Christians .. as "usury" is forbidden in the bible (you can't lend moey to your brother) - so if Christians could not lend money to Christians ... Jews could do it ... and Jews were forbidden from many other professions, money-lending was about al the Jews were allowed to do in Christian countries.

This did not stop the Church itself lending money - and the rates the church and other Christians charged were usually much higher than the jews charged ...
no, see my tell goes liek this: jews don't charge jews interest, jews charge orthodoxes interest.

i'm not entirely sure the jews are a race, since religion is entirely optional. it's more, anti-religionist (there has to be a better word...)
and i'm anti- most religions, that's the main reason i'm anti jews.

ursury=interest, not lending. you'll find the qu'ran makes provision for it, (musarakah) and, going by your bible snippet "you cunt, lend money to your brother" Bandit 1:101, so does the new testicles.

the precept is that you "can't (shouldn't) make money off money" becuase that's evil and your loving god will smite you and you'll burn in hell fires and pain and misery for all eternity. because he loves you.

so, a jew lending his brother-jew some money, wont charge interest. a jew lending a catholic, will. = ursury = the root of most modern fuckups.


Learnt! (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/learnt?s=t) Now go crawl back into your burrow :motu:

i am in my burrow. it's warm and smells like me, so i feel safe here.

[mashman]

Agreed but all systems of value and exchange are at risk in a disaster. There is no perfect protection - certainly not gold under the bed when food and shelter are critical to life.

The best that can be done is for banks being careful to whom they lend, spread the lending across business, residential, and personal, and to hold reserves for the rainy day.

Ohhhhhhhhh rly. If you didn't rely on it so much, you wouldn't miss it when the chips are down. You'd just get on as you usually did, but just with a bit of a mess to clean up.

That's not the best at all. Sorry to hear that that's the limit of your faith in humanity ;).

[Zedder]

Ohhhhhhhhh rly. If you didn't rely on it so much, you wouldn't miss it when the chips are down. You'd just get on as you usually did, but just with a bit of a mess to clean up.

That's not the best at all. Sorry to hear that that's the limit of your faith in humanity ;).

Do the words, written by your good self, "Humans, dumb as fuck since always" (IIRC) ring a bell?

[mashman]

Do the words, written by your good self, "Humans, dumb as fuck since always" (IIRC) ring a bell?

And? Dudn't mean I don't have faith in humanity... irrespective of how dumb you all are :bleh:

[Zedder]

And? Dudn't mean I don't have faith in humanity... irrespective of how dumb you all are :bleh:

Hello McFly?

[mashman]

Hello McFly?

Did I miss your point Biff?

[Zedder]

Did I miss your point Biff?

Nice try, but "Hello McFly?" has been generic for over 25 years NOW...

[mashman]

Nice try, but "Hello McFly?" has been generic for over 25 years NOW...

Shut your mouf. Older than the movie? Perhaps it goes back to 1885?

[Zedder]

Shut your mouf. Older than the movie? Perhaps it goes back to 1885?

Well, that's when Back to the Future part 3 was set but the original was released in 1985 so I'll give ya that one.

I'm off to bed so have a good weekend. Motorbiking and beer brewing for you?

[mashman]

Well, that's when Back to the Future part 3 was set but the original was released in 1985 so I'll give ya that one.

I'm off to bed so have a good weekend. Motorbiking and beer brewing for you?

:rofl: how gracious of you.

Sweet dreams dear. Might try getting out for an hour or two, although the kiddies need attention and we're visiting folk over t weekend. But bought a Euro Lager mix today and will try finding that pipe in the fridge over the weekend. Then get the bottled for the fridge and try not to fuck things up too badly. Enjoy the weekend mate.

[Akzle]

:rofl: how gracious of you.

Sweet dreams dear. Might try getting out for an hour or two, although the kiddies need attention and we're visiting folk over t weekend. But bought a Euro Lager mix today and will try finding that pipe in the fridge over the weekend. Then get the bottled for the fridge and try not to fuck things up too badly. Enjoy the weekend mate.

if you're drilling a fridge... i believe it's cornflour and water that you spread on the outside, it will chill down on top of the pipes, so's you can see where they are...

[mashman]

if you're drilling a fridge... i believe it's cornflour and water that you spread on the outside, it will chill down on top of the pipes, so's you can see where they are...

Tis an F/F with drinks dispenser that I'm trying to tap in to. I've seen the pipe in the door before so with any luck there'll be a little panel removing and no drilling.

[husaberg]

So, in the wake of the Cyprus debacle, our esteemed leader reckons that it's a good idea to take depositor's money if the banks stuff up?

Shouldn’t the banks be looking at a deposit insurance scheme of some sort? You’d think so, wouldn’t you?

Remember the so-called “Light Bulb” and “Shower Heads” affairs, in 2008, where National slammed the then-Labour Government as engaging in “Nanny State” politics? National’s Nick Smith said,


“People should be free to use as much water as they like when showering, provided they don’t expect others to pay for their profligacy. User-pays is a far better approach than nanny state.”
So using eco lightbulbs and smaller shower flows, to conserve electricity and water is nasty “Nanny Statism”.


But going into people’s savings accounts; stealing their money; and handing it over to banks – is all hunky dory?

Well, I’m glad that’s settled.


Such a nice man.........

The point i haven't seen in the thread is the monies "invested" in the targeted Cyprus banks is there mostly for dodgy European money laundering purposes.
it could well be there but i can't be arsed looking anyway.......
Key bailed out all his mates with their collapsed investments a couple of years ago at the tax payers expense.
I said then well if they could afford to invest it and did so because the interest rates were substantially higher than banks i say tuff titties.
It's the risk they took.

National now will sell out NZ with a deal to give almost free power again to Rio Tinto.
This is something they have had for 30 years as part of the original smelter deal it went to a "more market rate" about a year ago.....The poor hard done by multi national is now crying poverty National will bow down to them. and sell out NZ again.

Otherwise the asset sales will be under threat.
Without assets sales us Nsw Zealander's would miss out on the opportunity to buy a share's in something we already er....own.

don't get me wrong labour was nearly as bad the carbon tax no one mentions its egfect on Solid energy.

Add in the extra 4 million tons of coal mined with $26 dollars a ton going direct to the government. 9Yes thats over 100 million that is never mentioned) as a carbon tax Solid Energy was making good money.
If you look into solid energy's book you will see there loss was basically a accounting loss as the bean counters had lowered the value on the coal reserves.
The net income was actually quite good considering how much money was being squandered and rhe fact they stopped production at spring creek and huntley

[jonbuoy]

Some of the money is from tax avoidance. Some is locals or people who retired to Cyprus money/savings.

[blue rider]

no further comment to add

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/30/1198043/-Cyprus-post-mortem-even-worse-than-we-imagined

[mashman]

no further comment to add

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/30/1198043/-Cyprus-post-mortem-even-worse-than-we-imagined

:facepalm:... who knows what dodgy deeds are being done behind the closed doors of the jewish/jesuit/illuminati/annanuki/rothschild/church/masonic/nazis from the moon "orders". Fortunately it'll never happen here.

[husaberg]

:facepalm:... who knows what dodgy deeds are being done behind the closed doors of the jewish/jesuit/illuminati/annanuki/rothschild/church/masonic/nazis from the moon "orders". Fortunately it'll never happen here.

Too right as nearly all our banks are Aussie owned lol...........
I arn't buying the sob story in the link sorry.
If they hadn't have been bailed out, the banks and the whole country would have been bankrupt. Remember the EU a lot of didn't want Cyprus and Greece....
plus others Turkey i think? maybe no income taxes from foreign investment wasn't the best idea after-all.....

[mashman]

Too right as nearly all our banks are Aussie owned lol...........
I arn't buying the sob story in the link sorry.
If they hadn't have been bailed out, the banks and the whole country would have been bankrupt. Remember the EU a lot of didn't want Cyprus and Greece....
plus others Turkey i think? maybe no income taxes from foreign investment wasn't the best idea after-all.....

True... good job noone in NZ has any money in a foreign bank eh ;)

Didn't hurt Iceland really did it?

[mashman]

“I wouldn’t be surprised if someone took a gun and went after whoever is responsible for all this,” said Marios Georgiou, a 45-year-old civil servant who stands to lose 40 to 50 per cent of his savings, held in the two banks targeted in the bail-out, Laiki and Bank of Cyprus.

“I ask you, is this fair? Is this legal? It cannot be. People can’t believe it. We have been in a struggle with the Turks for 40 years, but it took the EU just one day to come here and take all our money.” (http://au.businessinsider.com/in-cyrpus-the-economic-misery-is-just-beginning-to-sink-in-2013-3?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+businessinsider+%28Business+I nsider%29)

Good job NZer's are used to gettun a financial humpun from all n sundry... they shoulda tried it here first.

[jonbuoy]

“I wouldn’t be surprised if someone took a gun and went after whoever is responsible for all this,” said Marios Georgiou, a 45-year-old civil servant who stands to lose 40 to 50 per cent of his savings, held in the two banks targeted in the bail-out, Laiki and Bank of Cyprus.

“I ask you, is this fair? Is this legal? It cannot be. People can’t believe it. We have been in a struggle with the Turks for 40 years, but it took the EU just one day to come here and take all our money.” (http://au.businessinsider.com/in-cyrpus-the-economic-misery-is-just-beginning-to-sink-in-2013-3?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+businessinsider+%28Business+I nsider%29)

Good job NZer's are used to gettun a financial humpun from all n sundry... they shoulda tried it here first.

It's a bit tiresome hearing people blaming the EU/Germany for lending money and then having the gall to ask for repayments to be made on it. Fault lies with their own governments. You can blame the EU for letting the Southern States join in the first place. They just weren't ready to get a good credit rating.

[Winston001]

Yeah, it seems that Cyprus had pretty lax banking rules taking in money from all comers. Apparently the amount of money invested in Cypriot banks is 10 times the size of the whole Cypriot economy. That money sure as hell didn't come from under mum and dad's mattresses.

The Russian mafia saw this as a jolly good spot to enter the Western banking system (EU). I don't blame the Germans etc for not wanting to bail them out.

You can't help but feel sorry for the ordinary Cypriot though - it isn't their fault and they probably have sod all savings anyway. However the proposal so far as I can understand it is that a 10% clip is far far better than a 100% clip if their banks fail. Not pleasant but not the end of ordinary life either.

[mashman]

It's a bit tiresome hearing people blaming the EU/Germany for lending money and then having the gall to ask for repayments to be made on it. Fault lies with their own governments. You can blame the EU for letting the Southern States join in the first place. They just weren't ready to get a good credit rating.

As pointed out in another thread. Tis only the level of debt that separates country's. Trading in debt is only a smart move as long as when the music stops you find a chair. It'll be interesting to see which of our councils end up carrying the baby with the LGFA now in full swing. I guess it will be their own fault?

[R650R]

Hold onto your wallets...we all know what happens when they have a 'drill' these days...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2788613/britain-america-hold-war-games-test-reaction-bank-crisis-atlantic.html

[mashman]

Hold onto your wallets...we all know what happens when they have a 'drill' these days...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2788613/britain-america-hold-war-games-test-reaction-bank-crisis-atlantic.html

The funny thing is, is that it isn't that hard to let a big bank go. Create the money and instantly write it off by bailing out the customer and employee directly. No need for any debt.