Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

[caspar]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

The problem is Peter, what alternative do we realistically have? We behave in a moral way towards them, then they behave atrociously towards us, yet expect the same morality to continue. That, I'm afraid, is simply not living in the real world, and anyone who thinks it is is deluding themselves.

[garlok]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Peter it is not unjust your very own words were that that is the way it is.

In the cold war would you have thrown water bombs at those that had snow on their boots? Would you have gone out and bought a water pistol to protect your family?

The principle is the same, you said it, Capitalism which by definition is Dog Eat Dog.

regards
Garlok

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

I agree Silverback with what you are saying.

Also Peter, no one is actually saying that morality does not matter per se, of course it does matter and it matters a lot. The message, I certainly and others are trying to put across is that if you expect honesty, common decency, ethics, principled behaviour, compassion or consideration and help and support in trying to overcome your problems, then you are going to be SADLY DISSILLUSIONED.

As you correctly say that is capitalism, but why is it alright for one side to have to behave in an honourable way and not the other. That also is capitalism and the only way to deal with it is having to adopt the same basically unprincipled stance. Capitalism knows no other way, it expects nothing less.

regards
Garlok

Hi
Ithink that what you say is a philosophy of despair. I cannot believe that the only way to fight an unjust action is by another unjust action.


peter

[caspar]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Here is why I have no sympathy whatsoever for the banks and believe they deserve everything they get. I used to be in a very secure, well paid job (just short of 10 years ago and pulling in over £55000 a year). I then became extremely ill and was forced to retire early on health grounds aged just 42.

Now, when I was on the large salary I had all the support in the world from all financial institutions. When I became ill my salary went from £55K per annum to just £8K per annum overnight. My commitments obvously remained the same, so I did the right thing and contacted all the banks, card companies, etc... and told them about my situation (all cards had ppi and not one paid out one penny). Without exception they turned their backs on me and, now forewarned of my situation, demanded immediate repayment of everything which was obviously impossible.

As a direct result of this I've ended up losing my house, my future ability to take up paid employment due to the effect what they were doing did to my pre-existing medical condition and they've basically totally screwed up my life. I am now waiting to be made bankrupt.

I am sure I am not by any means the only one in this country to have gone through this. Any talk of having morality towards them is therefore extremely ill founded as morality towards your institution is much the same as respect in my opinion in that it has to be deserved. When you look how they treat people like me and then ask do they deserve it? For me, the answer is straightforward. No!

[garlok]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

I agree Silverback with what you are saying.

Also Peter, no one is actually saying that morality does not matter per se, of course it does matter and it matters a lot. The message, I certainly and others are trying to put across is that if you expect honesty, common decency, ethics, principled behaviour, compassion or consideration and help and support in trying to overcome your problems, then you are going to be SADLY DISSILLUSIONED.

As you correctly say that is capitalism, but why is it alright for one side to have to behave in an honourable way and not the other. That also is capitalism and the only way to deal with it is having to adopt the same basically unprincipled stance. Capitalism knows no other way, it expects nothing less.

regards
Garlok

[DGJsaver]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Hmmmm , `mutually acceptable solution` ?

That doesnt sound like how it works to me , that would indicate that creditors/DCA`s actually DO leave you alone to get on paying the debt back once terms are agreed ...but no , they harass , write , phone , add interest , charges , never leave you alone , whilst you carry on paying an amount MUTUALLY AGREED

There is only one side , if you dont fight them (if all else fails ie MUTUALLY AGREED PAYMENTS) that matters in the end , and thats the creditors , if you let them kill you , they will ,and they wont bat an eyelid at doing it

[midastouch]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Thanks Silverback.

Explains why the world is in such a financial hole very nicely.

[Silverback]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

OK, I made up the bit about Bob the Builder and Eddy the Electrician, but the rest is all, sadly, frighteningly true.

Calling this "Capitalism" is no longer adequate. It's something else. It's gone beyond simple market mechanisms.

This is all out banking greed on a scale we have simply never seen before, compounded by complicit Governments around the Globe, run by weak Self-Serving Politicians who have engineered a blanket monopoly that denies true political and financial choice.

I do not see this as Left-Wing, Centre or Right-Wing, but more as common sense v banking greed gone utterly mad.

The huge problem is the twisted economies that go hand in glove with the bankers' requirements. Little of any real value is given a chance unless its main goal is to encourage Debt.

The world simply cannot afford the cost.

Silverback

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

I don't think many if any people start out that way Peter. But the banks are like drug dealers... do you arrest the person buying the drugs or do you go after the dealer who supplies.

In this case we MUST go after the supplier, they are giving to anyone who can't afford and the bank KNOWINGLY gives loans, CC increasing limits to those who can't afford.

Who really is at fault here?

Well i dont know, personally i have used credit myself as most of us have. How many would be abe to afford a car, a house or even a holliday without the use of credit. Whist on holiday lasr year i was ill and if it wasnt for my AMEX i would have been in deep do do as my insurance wasnt for paying up.

If you are saying that we must go after irresponsible lenders i would agree, but isnt that what these laws and regulations do Lets not forget there is such athing as personal responsibility. It is easy to blame other people for our mistakes but it is not always justified sometimes we just screw up dont we.

Peter

[garlok]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Hi Silverback,

That is one of the best commentaries on how it really works that I have ever read. i have known for a long time that only 3% of the country's money is actually underwritten by currency.

Perhaps people can start to understand why the politicians of any colour were persuaded to get rid of the gold standard and any real assets to underpin our economy.

And before anyone leaps in, my own son who worked in the "city" and has SFA qualis left this country because the corruption and blind eye turning that was going on.

Client accounts being emptied overnight so that the bankers could go gambling elsewhere in the world where markets were still open, the buying and selling of food commodities several times over without them leaving the warehouses whilst trading was closed to enhance the price for when the markets did open the next day. There is more.

Is anyone prepared to comment on the morality of that as well?

regards
Garlok

regards
Garlok

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

HI Yes well that is capitalism for you. So what is the alternative?

Look i totally agree with Nids points on the unenforceablity guide.
Creditors hae a duty yes a moral duty to be reasonable when the debtor runs into genuine trouble.
That is why for the last twenty years i have been working with people who push ethical lending. Unfortuanatley the world we live in, on the whole is not ethical or moral. So we have to do the best we can. But we should not give up, we should not say that morals dont matter or that they are irrelavant.

Peter

[Silverback]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Hello Niddy!

As for not costing the banks, well you know they too borrow the funds they lend us?

I'd argue that, no, they don't. Odd as that may seem.

This is how it works:

• They encourage Consumers to borrow Debt into existence.

• The Number-Money thus created pops onto their Computer Screens, using the Application/Agreement as a form of Cheque that they "deposit" into the Account before "lending" it out.

• This is why the UK Money Supply keeps growing and growing, with little or no involvement by UK Government (97% of our Money has been created by banks and Building Societies, the other 3% is Cash pound notes and coins).

• If the banks were not so greedy, they would then live off the Interest they charge, as the "Debt" is paid off.

• The "Debt" is not actually cleared, the Number-Money created when the "Debt" was first created, never gets "repaid out of existence". No, it remains as part of the UK Money Supply. It gets added to the bank's bottom line as it is paid down (with Interest of course).

• The banks are not happy with earning a measly few percent on something they never had in the first place, so they invented a fantastic game called Securitisation. It really is money for old rope, and why a banker did not come up with the idea a few Centuries ago, they will never know.

• Anyway, what they do is they "Sell" the "Debt" to a special Tax Avoidance (Evasion?) Vehicle called a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), which is a more or less non-existent Shell Company every bank keeps in a little tin box in the Broom Cupboard along with the Mops and Brooms.

• The SPV is really part of the bank, but they pretend it isn't.

• The SPV "Buys" the "Debt" and then by the magic of banking, it gets chopped and diced up into "Bonds".

• The SPV then "Sells" the very best "Bonds" to their banking mates, and the least profitable "Bonds" to gullible Pension Funds and other investors, in return for a cut of the "Interest" the "Filthy Debtor" is struggling to pay back via hard-earned "Real Money". That being the "Real Money" they scrimp and save by digging holes in the ground, building things, or training to be Doctors, Welders, Teachers, Soldiers, Bus Drivers, Brick Layers and other similar real jobs that does not include banker, Politician, Estate Agent or Lawyer.

• The SPV hands the "Real Money" acquired via Securitisation straight to the bank as a lump sum, who then pays the fattest of the fat car bankers most of it via huge Bonuses. The rest the bank simply gambles via playing complex games they don't really understand on the Money Markets with other bankers. The aim is to find other bankers more dull and greedy than themselves so they can screw them and earn even more.

• The bank then harvests the "Interest" from the "Filthy Debtor", keeps a nice fat slice to pay the rent and bank fodder junior staff not deemed fat enough fat cats yet to get a proper bonus. The rest it pays to the SPV who pays it to the Bond Holders, starting with the bankers holding the best "Bonds" and what's left goes to the worst performing "Bonds" bought by Pension Funds and other similar groups who still think the banks can be trusted.

• The banks thought this Securitisation game could go on, and up, and out and keep on inflating, without any limit.

• So, they invented even cleverer games, called Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) that are so clever, no banker could understand them because they were all invented by propeller-head Maths PHds from Oxford, Harvard and Cambridge. In layman's terms, these are brand new "Debts" made up of other "Debts", which are then, in turn, chopped and diced and sold off as brand spanking new "Bonds". Some CDOs are in turn made up of batches of other CDOs, which are again chopped and diced and sold off as further brand new "Bonds". The bankers never buy these, they know they are bad news, so just sell them to wide eyed Pension Fund Managers who cannot see they are too good to be true.

• The whole thing, or so the bankers thought, was limitless, and could generate bigger and bigger bonuses. All they had to do was keep on creating "Debt" so their Global Ponzi Scheme could keep on pumping up. If they ran a bit short, they can always add clever Charges and increase the Interest Rates the "Filthy Debtors" pay when they stumble trying to keep up with the engineered spiralling costs.

• However, the banks failed to spot that almost every "Filthy Debtor" was carrying around a mountain of bankers and Bond Holders living on the back of what the "Fithly Debtor" thought was just a rather nasty Credit Card, Loan or Mortgage.

• The whole Global Ponzi Scheme collapsed when Bob the Builder fell over his Cat, and could not pay his Mortgage for a couple of Months. He stopped Building, so Eddy the Electrician ran a bit short, and could not, in turn, pay his Mortgage either.

• This set up a shock wave that reverberated throughout the Global banking Ponzi Scheme, because they both banked at Megabuck bank plc, and Megabuck bank plc had spent so much on Bonuses and Russian Whores, that it was caught short and so had no "Filthy Debtor" Interest to pay either its Gambling Debts with the other banks, or any of the "Bond Holders".

• The other banks then ran short, and found they could not clear their Gambling Slates either, nor pay their "Bond Holders"...and the problem Knocked-on around the whole world in less then 20 seconds, because the banks are all Networked with each other. Someone spilt some coffee on a keyboard in a bank in Tokyo, which didn't help the situation and added a few zeros to the problem without any banker knowing.

• Within a matter of a few seconds of the bank finding out that Bob the Builder and Eddy the Electrician had dared to burp on their Mortgages, the whole Global banking Ponzi Scheme had collapsed, and the banks stopped trusting each other, knowing their banking mates were all crooks like them, and clearly not to be trusted.

• They stopped the Securitisation Game, and stopped everything else too, just in case, because none of them had any idea how it all worked anyway.

• Selling the Bentleys and letting the Russian Whores go was not an option, so the banks called up their Self-Serving Politician mates, and told them to start printing Number-Money to make up the shortfall. Which they of course gladly did, because they were also not about to sell their Bentleys either, nor let any of their Russian whores go if the bankers didn't.

• They decided to call the problem a "Credit Crunch" and elected to blame it on something they called "Toxic Debts" to thrust the blame as far away from the banks as possible, and as close to the "Filthiest Debtors" they could find to deflect the blame.

• The Bailout money was used to pay off the banking "Bond Holders" who were otherwise getting very upset at not being paid. The other "Bond Holders" could wait, so what if a few Pension Funds collapse, that's not their problem. All the rest went into hidden accounts, ready to spend when the "Filthy Debtors" - who clearly caused all of this beastly mess anyway - had started to go properly bust in the resultant Recession, when the bankers could move in for the kill and mop up their Assets for a song...ready to rent the same Assets back to the growing band of "Filthy Debtors" who were expected to no longer be able to afford to buy a home of their own.

There, so, no, they don't borrow anything to lend to us. We borrow it into existence for them, and they then sell our Debts to pay their fat Bonuses. If any money finds its way back to a bank, they award it to themselves as a Bonus.

Silverback

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Seems they also can't produce a compliant default notice either

[jen_br]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Geez seems TSB did this to a lot of people don't feel so bad now.

[cymruambyth]

Re: Dispensing with the "MORALITY" issue

Great thread.

When I first was 'persuaded' by LTSB to take out a credit card in 2003, I had no steady income as I was a stay at home dad looking after two young kids. The employee basically said (I'm obviously paraphrasing), "you get child benefit don't you? Ever sold anything on Ebay? Just put down £5,000 a year"

Now of course, responsibilty is a two-way issue. I know that I should have told him to bugger off, but the truth is it should never have been offered in the first place.

My initial £1,500 limit in 2003 grew to £12,000 in 6 years - and my credit rating was A1 for most of that time. Of course when the credit crunch came and my marriage collapsed, were LTSB bothered? Of course not! This, the same LTSB that are currently 45 % owned by the public due to their reckless gambles - truly it beggars belief! Did we as tax-payers ever get an option to bail out these bunch of crooks?

We're being crapped on from a great height and we are morally right to stand up to this clear abuse by the banks and government.

I'm going through 6 years of statements, adding up my actual spend, and the amount payed back in interest and incidental charges. I'm sure the final figure will make for an interesting, and quite horrific, amount of money.

Keep smiling all,

MT

LTSB yuck.

I was suffering from a shock family bereavement working 14 hours a week and LTSB gave a loan for £25k and a CC for £12k in my name with no reference to OH.

It was for consolidation but at that point we were already suffering financially ....... I know I didn't have to accept, but when your bank does a financial review and throws so much money at you when you are down you think that everything is fine.

We imploded within 18 months and when I had a free review at a different branch they said that they would not have given any money BUT would not put this is writing.