Why can't we just kick these banks out and press reset?

af_thefragile

The whole world is in unmeasurable amounts of debt. A debt created by incapable governments and greedy banks. And it is us who're paying for it.
And I ask why should we pay for a debt which we had no part in? What did we get out of all the bailouts? Why is the world in so much debt? Why does the world owe so much to just a couple of institutions in the first place?
Why can't we just abolish these institutions that we owe all this money to and sort of press reset to the world economy? Why can't we just cancel all of world debt and start building from scratch?

We speak about progress and all, how are we ever going to make any progress as humanity when just a couple of financial institutions has us grabbed by the balls. Financial institutions we created that has ended up hindering our own progress.

We speak of a global economy, one world and all of that. Why in this global economy is there so much divide between the wealthy and poor? Why does economic development occur as a result of loan and debt rather than a result of world contribution?

My questions maybe naive but just think about it. Why are we letting all of this happen? Think about it, we created these institutions so why can't we abolish them? If we can only abolish all those financial institutions that we owe all our debt to and start fresh from no debt, how much more successful can we be in developing and progressing this world and humanity...

danman

That makes perfect sense.

Let's build up a dept, then when we can't afford to pay it back, let's just nuke the lenders.

Perhaps we should try out a system where by, everyone is equal. Let's call it communism.

Perhaps we should just go back to barter.
Only we have nothing that the rest of the world would want to exchange.

Sorry OP, I know there was a lot of thought gone into your post, but we can't simply opt out.

Fighting Irish

af_thefragile wrote: »

The whole world is in unmeasurable amounts of debt. A debt created by incapable governments and greedy banks. And it is us who're paying for it.

It had nothing to do with people getting out stupid loans

chriscross1

its a disgrace

af_thefragile

I know it doesn't make sense economically and politically but its just a hypothetical thought.

I believe all these governments and financial institutions should be there to help and support the development of the world. But instead all governments do is form bureaucracies to police people around and all financial institutions do is give out more loads so that they can acquire more interest and grow larger and more powerful.

My views are probably very idealistic of a world where everyone thinks about others before themselves but we put out trust and faith in these leaders and financial institutions that have been created for our benefit only to be let down by them over and over again. All we end up in is more debt.

Don't you think there's something wrong about just a couple of financial institutions controlling all of the world's wealth? Where countries who can't even afford to educate children and provide healthcare have to sell off its resources only to be able to pay off the interest on the massive debt they're in.

Why should we pay more taxes, accept pay cuts and lose jobs just so that our country can convert our hard work into paying off the debt it is in. You say this is not communism and we're living in a free country. How is this free when half of your wages are taken away by the government and most of that is used to pay off the debt to a couple of financial institution? While at the same time the country is going to the dogs.

Why can't we all just decide that yes, our leaders made a mistake by taking more than they could pay off but we can't let our children suffer because of the mistakes made by a few incapable men and so we should cancel the world debt in a kind gesture of humanity and start again from scratch, learning from the mistakes of the past to not commit them again.

Yeah, its not going to happen because all world leaders think about maintaining their leadership before sustaining their country and the financial institutions are just there to make more profit out of interest so that the already rich bankers can keep getting richer and more powerful.
While we work our asses off so that this system can be maintained.

Tea drinker

danman wrote: »

That makes perfect sense.

Let's build up a dept, then when we can't afford to pay it back, let's just nuke the lenders.

Perhaps we should try out a system where by, everyone is equal. Let's call it communism.

Perhaps we should just go back to barter.
Only we have nothing that the rest of the world would want to exchange.

Sorry OP, I know there was a lot of thought gone into your post, but we can't simply opt out.

Well we can't pay someone elses debts either, that is insanity.
These bad loans etc have nothing to do with me. Why would I donate money to banks when there are people needing medicine or food?
Anyway, it's not a donation, this money is being stolen from taxpayers.
That's hardly ideal either.

af_thefragile

Fighting Irish wrote: »

It had nothing to do with people getting out stupid loans

If banks didn't give out such loans in the first place the whole thing wouldn't have happened. But the bankers just wanna make more profit through interest and the more ways they can come up with of giving out loans, the more profit they can make. This is where the problem lies. All the way from Anglo Irish bank upto the World Bank and IMF.

The banks are to blame for creating the whole illusion that you could take as much loan as you want without any major consequences. The people are stupid and they fell for it.
The government leaders were incapable and they didn't do anything to prevent it. Cuz hey, what matters to them if people are going to take out loans they can't pay back?! They've got their place in the leadership hierarchy and thats all they care about.

af_thefragile

Tea drinker wrote: »

Well we can't pay someone elses debts either, that is insanity.
These bad loans etc have nothing to do with me. Why would I donate money to banks when there are people needing medicine or food?
Anyway, it's not a donation, this money is being stolen from taxpayers.
That's hardly ideal either.

Exactly.
Why should we spend billions of our hard earned money to pay off a couple of greedy banks while instead we could make much better use of that money in developing the world, feeding the hungry, educating children and giving essential medical supplies to the ones in need...

I can't make sense out of the current system. It is only destroying the world further. Just a handful of very rich people controlling the major financial institutions are becoming ever more richer and powerful while the rest of the world suffers in poverty and hunger.

blinding

Certainly not enough of the bankers that have caused this mess have been kicked out on their backsides.

How have they got away with it. The politicians must be up to their necks in it and the bankers must have the evidence to keep the politicians on their knees.

danman

Tea drinker wrote: »

Well we can't pay someone elses debts either, that is insanity.
These bad loans etc have nothing to do with me. Why would I donate money to banks when there are people needing medicine or food?
Anyway, it's not a donation, this money is being stolen from taxpayers.
That's hardly ideal either.

Go back to the beginning.

Where did the money come from?

Could the country afford all the services they were providing?
Did tax take pay for all these services?
Where did the tax revenue come from?
Was it completely funded within the state?

Or did the banks get this money off those institutions?
The money was theirs to begin with, why should we not pay it back.

We don't live in an idealistic world.
The OP's view is entirely true, but not realistic in any way.

af_thefragile

danman wrote: »

Go back to the beginning.

Where did the money come from?

Could the country afford all the services they were providing?
Did tax take pay for all these services?
Where did the tax revenue come from?
Was it completely funded within the state?

Or did the banks get this money off those institutions?
The money was theirs to begin with, why should we not pay it back.

We don't live in an idealistic world.
The OP's view is entirely true, but not realistic in any way.

That is true which is why I say my whole argument is hypothetically based as something as such will never happen.

But going with the argument, the loans were taken (or in some cased forced onto countries) by incapable governments who couldn't think far enough as to how they were going to repay back the loans. It wasn't their job anyway, its always something for the next government to deal with. Another place where I feel there is an inherent flaw in the whole system.

My argument is not that why did we take loans from the EU or World Bank or wherever. But its that (seeing the whole world as a global entity) we created these institutions so that they could help develop the less developed parts of the world. This should had been done through a sort of a global/humanitarian fund where the wealthier countries contribute towards the development of the poorer countries. Not as a global bank, the way it is now, where the bank loans out money to a country along with a hefty interest rate and the country spends the next few decades just paying out the interest on the loan.

Firstly the countries government is to blame here for taking such a big loan and then not thinking ahead to how the country will repay it. Then its the next government's fault who to appeal to the population to get vote don't really make any policies about using the countries resources to pay off the loans but instead end up taking another loan just to pay off the building up interest on the original debt the country is in. Now the additional debt is something for next government to deal with and so on it continues.

During this time the country keeps going into more and more debt while finally the bubble bursts and suddenly everyone is jobless or paying more than half their wages as taxes and the only people who've gained from all of this are a couple of wealthy bankers who're feasting on the interest payments they get from all these countries in debt (which is paying through the hard earned income of the people of the country) and a few government leaders who have managed to skim some off the top for themselves coughbertycough.

talla10

would that include cancelling private people's debt like mortgages and credit cards...please god

kleefarr

danman wrote: »

Where did the money come from?

The financial system is based on 'debt'.

Watch 'Money is debt' and you'll see how it works and where it came from.

danman

A lot of debt that was built up in 3rd world countries was caused by civil wars and wars in general. Why should that type of dept not be paid back?

Also, in the global economy, not all countries are having a recession, some countries are doing fine.
Why should they be penalised for those countries that are in recession.

How much has china loaned to the US?

When the west comes out of recession, the boom/bust cycle will continue. Both sides will swap places in economic terms.

I know your theory is hypothetical, and is worthy of debate, but there are as many minuses as pluses.

Fighting Irish

af_thefragile wrote: »

If banks didn't give out such loans in the first place the whole thing wouldn't have happened. But the bankers just wanna make more profit through interest and the more ways they can come up with of giving out loans, the more profit they can make. This is where the problem lies. All the way from Anglo Irish bank upto the World Bank and IMF.

The banks are to blame for creating the whole illusion that you could take as much loan as you want without any major consequences. The people are stupid and they fell for it.
The government leaders were incapable and they didn't do anything to prevent it. Cuz hey, what matters to them if people are going to take out loans they can't pay back?! They've got their place in the leadership hierarchy and thats all they care about.

I agree with you somewhat, but lets say back then if the gov had put a stop to banks stupidly lending, a lot of people would be giving out about the gov. Most people got greedy

loldog

Well, I think what happened last in the last two years is going to have a profound effect on this century.

People saw that when they couldn't make their payments the banks took their homes, but when the banks got into difficulty they got bailed out by the taxpayer.

I think many people will see a double standard there and will be thinking that maybe there's got be some changes made.

.

af_thefragile

Fighting Irish wrote: »

I agree with you somewhat, but lets say back then if the gov had put a stop to banks stupidly lending, a lot of people would be giving out about the gov. Most people got greedy

Which is exactly why the governments don't do anything about this. They wanna be favorable in the people's view to gain the next vote and that's all they care about. Hence I said this is another place where I feel the system is inherently flawed.

But the main culprits are the bankers. They created this whole system of loans that no normal person can fathom and hence they get lured into the false sense of security given by the Banks "yes if you don't repay back things will get bad but sure that'll never happen, we'll take care of you, here you can also take some insurance on the loan you can't pay back".

danman

loldog wrote: »

Well, I think what happened last in the last two years is going to have a profound effect on this century.

People saw that when they couldn't make their payments the banks took their homes, but when the banks got into difficulty they got bailed out by the taxpayer.

I think many people will see a double standard there and will be thinking that maybe there's got be some changes made.

.

This would be the case if the banks never had to repay the bailouts.
Leaving Anglo aside, the bailouts paid to AIB and BoI will be repaid.

It is a common misconception that the bailouts are simply going into a black hole.

If AIB or BoI don't repay the bailouts, they are in the same position as the mortgage holder that can't repay.

Look on it this way, mortgage holders were given a bailout because they didn't have the funds available to buy their house.

I'm not saying that it is right, but it's a necessity.

Anglo can rot.

af_thefragile

danman wrote: »

A lot of debt that was built up in 3rd world countries was caused by civil wars and wars in general. Why should that type of dept not be paid back?

Also, in the global economy, not all countries are having a recession, some countries are doing fine.
Why should they be penalised for those countries that are in recession.

How much has china loaned to the US?

When the west comes out of recession, the boom/bust cycle will continue. Both sides will swap places in economic terms.

I know your theory is hypothetical, and is worthy of debate, but there are as many minuses as pluses.

And I'm not expecting this to be solved by a bunch of economists who sit at a table and decide which country needs to pay back how much to which country.

The only way I see a solution to this is that every country comes together and accepts yes, the whole system we've created of giving out interest based loans for development is flawed and we've screwed up most of the world. The only way to fix this is to flush this system away.

The countries need to accept on abolishing the world financial institutions and so canceling all of world debt. As most countries in the world are in debt, they'ld (in theory) freely welcome this move. The only losers here would be the few countries like China and Saudi whom countries like the US owe a lot to. But such countries could come to a mutual agreement of trade or development or something as such or just forget about it in a gesture of peace and humanity. Or else as you said, the bust/boom cycle will inevitably continue, sending down humanity one cycle at a time.

Now this only works in theory because in reality things are a lot more complex than that. Countries like America although in trillions of dollars of debt still have a lot of other countries working in trade agreements for them (Indonesia, Jamaica, Ecuador etc.) due to the policies set up by the IMF and World Bank. Now this would mean that if these institutions were abolished, all these countries working for America for less than a dollar a day, would be freed to spend their resources on developing their own countries. Good new for them.

But for america, this means their trillions of dollars of debt will be cancelled as well which might seem as great news but when all those trillions of dollars are just a number on a computer screen and pieces of paper, all that debt means nothing to the american bureaucracy. The loss of cheap labour would be a far greater loss to america than the cancellation of its trillions of dollars of debt.

Hence why I keep stressing on why such a thing would have to be a gesture of humanity and good for the whole world rather than looking after personal interests before the people starving across the planet.

af_thefragile

danman wrote: »

This would be the case if the banks never had to repay the bailouts.
Leaving Anglo aside, the bailouts paid to AIB and BoI will be repaid.

It is a common misconception that the bailouts are simply going into a black hole.

If AIB or BoI don't repay the bailouts, they are in the same position as the mortgage holder that can't repay.

Look on it this way, mortgage holders were given a bailout because they didn't have the funds available to buy their house.

I'm not saying that it is right, but it's a necessity.

Anglo can rot.

I really don't see the tax payer getting his money back that has gone/is going into paying for the bailouts.

All thats gonna happen is that banks will once again start giving out easy loans and funds and take loans from other banks to find the money to be able to repay back the money they got from the bailouts.

There will be another small "economic boom" where people can get these easy loans that the banks are giving out.

People will once again take out more than they can repay. The government won't do anything to prevent this for exactly the same reason they didn't do anything the last time. The bubble will once again burst. There will be another "worst rescission ever".

The government will once again take massive loans from the big financial institutions (World Bank, IMF, Federal Reserve) to bail out these banks once again. And the cycle continues.

Each time the government and banks (and so the people) go into bigger debts while the big financial institutions become richer and more powerful.

Tea drinker

danman wrote: »

Go back to the beginning.

Where did the money come from?

Could the country afford all the services they were providing?
Did tax take pay for all these services?
Where did the tax revenue come from?
Was it completely funded within the state?

Or did the banks get this money off those institutions?
The money was theirs to begin with, why should we not pay it back.

We don't live in an idealistic world.
The OP's view is entirely true, but not realistic in any way.

I keep saying Danman, these private debts have nothing to do with me.
I will refuse to pay my tax and would gladly support a legal challenge to prevent this theft.

The trouble stems from the government muddying the waters by transferring private debt of individuals and private companies to the public purse. Now, public debt is somewhat my responsibility, I pay guys to manage the country for me, and if I (we) put the wrong guys in, on wrong wages or conditions etc, then that's partly my problem. (I don't vote FF)

Where did the problem for Ireland come from?
Only one place: Lack of regulation and fraud in the property market.
Gov was very happy to take 40% of 300,000 as it was a lot better than 40% of 100,000. Trouble is, coming down off the larger sum is much more difficult than coming off the small one. Gov built the state finances around an unsustainable property boom, one which they regulalrly fanned the flames of, participated in, and colluded to create it.
Any fraud and illegal activities were not carried out by me, all the white collar criminals need to pay, not me.

One last thing, the banks made a fortune in the good times, where is their war chest? why did they have such an unsustainable business model? These questions they should answer, and the creditors of these banks should also accept that you can make money as well as lose it with investments. I myself lost money on an investment, perhaps I should call them to educate them, or to convince them my loss is in fact theirs?
How would I start this conversation?
Dear Santa.....

danman

danman wrote: »

Go back to the beginning.

Where did the money come from?

Could the country afford all the services they were providing?
Did tax take pay for all these services?
Where did the tax revenue come from?
Was it completely funded within the state?

Or did the banks (sorry meant to say Government) get this money off those institutions?
The money was theirs to begin with, why should we not pay it back.

We don't live in an idealistic world.
The OP's view is entirely true, but not realistic in any way.

Tea drinker wrote: »

I keep saying Danman, these private debts have nothing to do with me.

sorry tea drinker,
I've just re-read my post I meant to say Government instead of Banks.

Freudian slip perhaps