Bankers!

Monty Burnz

After reading the bazillionth post giving out about 'bankers' and how they are screwing the plain people of Ireland, and we should rise up against them, and that they are evil and nasty - it occurred to me once more: who the hell are people referring to?

Who are 'the bankers'? What do people mean when they throw out this term?

Do they mean:

1. The senior management in the banks who actually make the decisions?
2. The owners of the banks?
3. The people sitting in the offices 9 to 5 doing the ordinary office work?
4. Someone else?

Who are these evil bankers? Or is it just a stupid cliche thrown out by folks on the left and those who don't have a clue how the world and the world of business work?

srsly78

Most people are idiots and mean the tellers sitting at the counter.

suitseir

srsly78 wrote: »

Most people are idiots and mean the tellers sitting at the counter.

Don't understand your post?

Arthurdaly

Its a tiny percentage that make the kind of decisions that resulted in the recent carnage. I would think at best its about 1% of the workforce in a big bank that make the kind of decisions that could collapse a country so its definitely not anyone below senior management.

suitseir

Arthurdaly wrote: »

Its a tiny percentage that make the kind of decisions that resulted in the recent carnage. I would think at best its about 1% of the workforce in a big bank that make the kind of decisions that could collapse a country so its definitely not anyone below senior management.

Correct. You seem to know your stuff!!!

Monty Burnz

Arthurdaly wrote: »

Its a tiny percentage that make the kind of decisions that resulted in the recent carnage. I would think at best its about 1% of the workforce in a big bank that make the kind of decisions that could collapse a country so its definitely not anyone below senior management.

This is all very well and factual, but I was hoping to hear from the clowns who blame the 'bankers' for all society's ills without ever explaining who they are talking about.

Where are you, lads?

Fishooks12

My father is middle management in AIB

Struggling to put me and my brothers through college and has had his wages cut severely in the last few years

Never has he had his golf membership paid for and hasn't gotten a christmas bonus in the last 3 years. The staff of the branch he used to manage before being promoted aren't even allowed a christmas party

It's the tiny minority at the top that made all the decisions that ****ed us up and as a result all bank employees are stigmatised

joshrogan

Fishooks12 wrote: »

My father is middle management in AIB

Struggling to put me and my brothers through college and has had his wages cut severely in the last few years

Never has he had his golf membership paid for and hasn't gotten a christmas bonus in the last 3 years. The staff of the branch he used to manage before being promoted aren't even allowed a christmas party

It's the tiny minority at the top that made all the decisions that ****ed us up and as a result all bank employees are stigmatised

IT UR DA'S FAULT I CANT GETTA JOBB!ONE1!! BLEEDIN BANKERS

Freddie59

srsly78 wrote: »

Most people are idiots and mean the tellers sitting at the counter.

Of course they are.:rolleyes: "Most people are idiots".....lovely comment.:rolleyes: The problem most people have is actually with the ex-Government, the owners and management of the banks, and the developers.

They just want to see some justice, AKA treating them like any private enterprise - meaning close the majority of them.

Fishooks12

Freddie59 wrote: »

Of course they are.:rolleyes: "Most people are idiots".....lovely comment.:rolleyes: The problem most people have is actually with the ex-Government, the owners and management of the banks, and the developers.

They just want to see some justice, AKA treating them like any private enterprise - meaning close the majority of them.

yep close the majority of the banks, real guaranteed way to get the economy going again:rolleyes:

Immaculate Pasta

srsly78 wrote: »

Most people are idiots and mean the tellers sitting at the counter.

This. Half the clowns who are out protesting against bankers at the moment don't know who they're protesting against.

When I left school at 18 I went to work as a cashier at a high street bank. Now as soon as I joined it was the start of the financial collapse. I had customers coming up to me saying "It's your fault why the country is in a mess!" and all this carry on. It made me laugh because I'd only been paying in cheques etc. for a couple of months and suddenly I'm at fault for a global financial crisis .

So sorry lads it's my fault. I took my eye off the ball for a second there :rolleyes:

Arthurdaly

Just to expand on that, its probably the top 20 people in a massive company who decide the strategy and this is communicated down to people at a lower level.

In the case of the subprime crisis the CEOs in the biggest investment banks could not explain exactly what had gone wrong, they themselves did not understand their own products.

Who are these CEOs answerable to? Nobody but investors, and when on the upside nobody asks questions and will live in ignorant bliss. When on the downside those same guys will walk away taking with them massive earnings and bonus.

Its all pretty disgusting but everyone plays their part.

Monty Burnz

Freddie59 wrote: »

Of course they are.:rolleyes: "Most people are idiots".....lovely comment.:rolleyes: The problem most people have is actually with the ex-Government, the owners and management of the banks, and the developers.

Well, the owners of the banks were your pension fund and mine, plus some private shareholders who would have held anything from millions down to a few hundred euros worth of shares. The owner of AIB, Anglo, BOI, PTSB, Irish Nationwide and EBS today is of course the Irish taxpayer.

Freddie59 wrote: »

They just want to see some justice, AKA treating them like any private enterprise - meaning close the majority of them.

For sure, they should have been let go bust instead of guaranteed a few years back, but you'd need a government with a lot more balls and a lot more integrity than Fianna Failure to let that happen. Once the guarantee was made, our course was more or less set.

Fishooks12

Monty Burnz wrote: »

For sure, they should have been let go bust instead of guaranteed a few years back, but you'd need a government with a lot more balls and a lot more integrity than Fianna Failure to let that happen. Once the guarantee was made, our course was more or less set.

Do you realise what would happen if the government "let the banks go"? Anyone basic knowledge of economics knows that it wasn't an option

My name is URL

Monty Burnz wrote: »

For sure, they should have been let go bust instead of guaranteed a few years back, but you'd need a government with a lot more balls and a lot more integrity than Fianna Failure to let that happen. Once the guarantee was made, our course was more or less set.

FG & SF also both supported and voted in favor of the bank guarantees.

Fishooks12

My name is URL wrote: »

FG & SF also both supported and voted in favor of the bank guarantees.

Because if it didn't happen we'd be all ten times more ****ed than we are now

jaffa20

It's the people behind the scenes we don't see who made all the wrong decisions. The people working 9-5 are now paying for those decisions with pay cuts, severity measures to save money and job losses. They are also the ones who take the abuse on a daily basis.

The guys who made the deciisions are still sitting on big bonuses and are being rewarded for now making new decisions to attempt to get out of the mess they created in the first place.

It sucks to work in a bank right now.

Monty Burnz

Fishooks12 wrote: »

Do you realise what would happen if the government "let the banks go"? Anyone basic knowledge of economics knows that it wasn't an option

I do. I've discussed it at some length on this very site. I've lived in Argentina in the years after their default, in addition to having a pretty solid third level/fourth level background in economics, so I've theoretical and practical knowledge about the subject that should stand up reasonably well...

Monty Burnz

jaffa20 wrote: »

The guys who made the deciisions are still sitting on big bonuses and are being rewarded for now making new decisions to attempt to get out of the mess they created in the first place.

I don't know how many members of the boards and how many of the chief execs are left from the bubble era, but I'm pretty sure most of the board members and all of the chief execs are gone (albeit with handsome golden parachutes :rolleyes:).

Duke Leonal Felmet

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Fishooks12 wrote: »

Do you realise what would happen if the government "let the banks go"? Anyone basic knowledge of economics knows that it wasn't an option

I do. I've discussed it at some length on this very site. I've lived in Argentina in the years after their default, in addition to having a pretty solid third level/fourth level background in economics, so I've theoretical and practical knowledge about the subject that should stand up reasonably well...

Then you would know that the Argentine financial crisis (either one) was not directly comparable to Ireland.

Glad to see those degrees/life experience being put to use.

Mike 1972

Fishooks12 wrote: »

Never has he had his golf membership paid for and hasn't gotten a christmas bonus in the last 3 years. The staff of the branch he used to manage before being promoted aren't even allowed a christmas party

First world problems ?

Fishooks12

Mike 1972 wrote: »

First world problems ?

just as an example of how every section of banking staff are vilified, that story about the golf membership was upper management for example but the way it was reported you'd think it applied to every manager

Monty Burnz

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Then you would know that the Argentine financial crisis (either one) was not directly comparable to Ireland.

It's not a mirror image, no. I don't think I claimed it was? Do you think that living in post-default Argentina is hindering my understanding of the sort of problems that a bank collapse in Ireland would entail?

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Glad to see those degrees/life experience being put to use.

What?

Your posts are usually a lot better than that.

My name is URL

Fishooks12 wrote: »

Because if it didn't happen we'd be all ten times more ****ed than we are now

Maybe, but there's a good chance that we would have recovered much faster if insolvent banks were just allowed to go under. The recapitalized banks here are still broken despite the guarantees they were given. The country is now nothing more than a debt-servicing machine, and will be for decades to come.

Fishooks12

My name is URL wrote: »

Maybe, but there's a good chance that we would have recovered much faster if insolvent banks were just allowed to go under. The recapitalized banks here are still broken despite the guarantees they were given. The country is now nothing more than a debt-servicing machine, and will be for decades to come.

we've already returned to growth so I think we can be a bit more optimistic than that

mikemac

"We own you now"
"You work for us now"

There are some right clowns out there, bitching at the porters and cashiers as if they managed to break a bank in between lodging cheques and locking doors

But then I suppose these are the same people who go to restaurants and bars and complain and intimidate the minimum wage students about the prices and it never occurs to them to go look for the manager or the owner

The golf membership was a non-story whipped up by the media with an agenda. And sure AIB does sports and social and you can get contributions towards certain clubs but the figures were inflated in the newspapers, I knew as I was working there before the story broke.
Can't believe what you read I suppose

It's dangerous the amount of power Tony O'Reilly has

squod

Fishooks12 wrote: »

Do you realise what would happen if the government "let the banks go"? Anyone basic knowledge of economics knows that it wasn't an option

Moar RTE guff peddled out randomly across the internet. There's no foundation to what you're saying. Some of the banks weren't suitable for bail-out agreements or guarantees that's for sure.

The fact is tat what we're left with is the worst case scenario. We owe people we don't know billions because of a bizarre guarantee handed out by a bad man. People across Europe are furious at this decision and rightly so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVXi-F6vZ-Q

Monty Burnz

mikemac wrote: »

But then I suppose these are the same people who go to restaurants and bars and complain and intimidate the minimum wage students about the prices and it never occurs to them to go look for the manager or the owner

I recall getting an earful from a McDonald's customer a long time ago about some corporate policy regarding Happy Meals. I'm not sure if she thought the teenager in front of her at the till was also on the board of McDonalds Corp., or had a direct line to the chief executive, but I'm pretty certain her rant didn't result in any changes in corporate policy.

4leto

When I talk about bankers I am talking about those that are investors the Gordon Gekko's of this world.

I wish I was one, they earn big, very big, so that attracts resentment.

Einhard

squod wrote: »

The fact is tat what we're left with is the worst case scenario. We owe people we don't know billions because of a bizarre guarantee handed out by a bad man. People across Europe are furious at this decision and rightly so.

I think it's very unfair to make a moral judgement against Brian lenihan in such a manner, and label him a "bad man". It may have been a poor decision, and he may have been incompetent, but that does not make him a bad man. The crisis facing the government was unprecedented in Irish history, and the choices stark. Nobody knew what exactly would happen either way. It's all very well to sit here a few years after the fact and, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, conemn the man in such harsh terms, whilst conveniently ignoring the fact that the bailout was supported by both SF and FG, and was welcomed by many economic commentators.

Monty Burnz

4leto wrote: »

When I talk about bankers I am talking about those that are investors the Gordon Gekko's of this world.

I wish I was one, they earn big, very big, so that attracts resentment.

I'm an investor (on a small scale). If you've a spare 1000 euro, you can be an investor. If you have a pension, then someone invests your money on your behalf.

The Gordon Gecko types didn't cause the property bubble here - we did that all by ourselves.

Hercule Poirot

Einhard wrote: »

I think it's very unfair to make a moral judgement against Brian lenihan in such a manner, and label him a "bad man". It may have been a poor decision, and he may have been incompetent, but that does not make him a bad man. The crisis facing the government was unprecedented in Irish history, and the choices stark. Nobody knew what exactly would happen either way. It's all very well to sit here a few years after the fact and, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, conemn the man in such harsh terms, whilst conveniently ignoring the fact that the bailout was supported by both SF and FG, and was welcomed by many economic commentators.

I agree, I may not have been Lenihan's biggest fan politically but it is unacceptable to judge him as a person based on a bad choice that he made. Bertie still believes he did a good job, stating that his only regret was not getting the Bertie Bowl - his only regret?!? Now he, is a bad man...

mikemac

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

I agree, I may not have been Lenihan's biggest fan politically but it is unacceptable to judge him as a person based on a bad choice that he made. Bertie still believes he did a good job, stating that his only regret was not getting the Bertie Bowl - his only regret?!? Now he, is a bad man...

You should work for the Evening Herald with that ability to make up a quote
Did an unnamed source tell you that?

When asked what his biggest regret was leaving office, Mr Ahern said he regretted not being aware of the crisis affecting Irish banks earlier.

The National Stadium is further down the page
http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0127/fiannafail.html

So how was the stadium his only regret?

squod

Einhard wrote: »

I think it's very unfair to make a moral judgement against Brian lenihan in such a manner, and label him a "bad man". It may have been a poor decision, and he may have been incompetent, but that does not make him a bad man. The crisis facing the government was unprecedented in Irish history, and the choices stark. Nobody knew what exactly would happen either way. It's all very well to sit here a few years after the fact and, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, conemn the man in such harsh terms, whilst conveniently ignoring the fact that the bailout was supported by both SF and FG, and was welcomed by many economic commentators.

The guarantee was to allow banks settle their debts not stick them to the citizen. Quite clearly what happened was not in the interest of the people generally.

Commentators and analysts aside, there were several opportunities to make amends during the long guarantee period. As People have told you time over the government issued the guarantees and then did nothing.

How did this happen? Listen to Joan Burtons recollection of the night before the guarantees for clues to that.

I can't blame solely one man. If I did I put the blame squarely on Cowen.

squod

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

I agree, I may not have been Lenihan's biggest fan politically but it is unacceptable to judge him as a person based on a bad choice that he made. Bertie still believes he did a good job, stating that his only regret was not getting the Bertie Bowl - his only regret?!? Now he, is a bad man...

How is Bertie more responsible? We owe hundreds of billions because of a banking guarantee not just because of a boom. People the world over borrowed from Irish banks because it was cheap and easy. Now were paying these faceless gamblers debts.

ilovesleep

There is no doubt about it what happened here in this country was immoral. Banks were saved at the expense of everyone.

I'm sure many people, I included reach a stumbling block where we see the very people at the top, the people responsible for crashing ireland, rewarded with golden handshakes and parachutes whereas if the likes of Seanie Fitz was an employee or manager of any other company wouldn't be as high. So we see all this while strict austerity measures will be forced upon us which will lead to higher taxes, reduced incomes, less services, higher unemployment, etc for everybody whether or not one waa foolish or not to but property and/or other goodies on borrowed money.

Another problem is the ex government in bed with the banks. The banks were like runaway drug addicts and dealers hulling many into borrowing finance. There was nothing done to halt such nonsense.

Bankers at the very top of the chain are the wealthiest people in the world. They control the money supply of any given country which leads to as we can see a boom and they can pull the legs from under us at any given time leading to a recession.

The biggest problem as I can see it; is the fractual reserve banking system. Money is created and lend out with interest which eventually leads to debt slaverly.

4leto

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm an investor (on a small scale). If you've a spare 1000 euro, you can be an investor. If you have a pension, then someone invests your money on your behalf.

The Gordon Gecko types didn't cause the property bubble here - we did that all by ourselves.

That is kind of simplistic, the availability of cheap unlimited credit from banks and the interbank market and with the system of credit default swaps, the banks thought they were taking no risk giving foolish credit.

Also with the belief that property prices only rise, it was win/win for all. There wasn't only a property boom here, there was just a bigger one here. Property prices rose everywhere.

But most people who bought property at that time were simply looking for homes, they were victims and still are in their negative equity.

I would love to say it will never happen again, but one sure thing about economics is the assertion, people learn nothing from history.

It will happen again and we will hear "BUT But this time it is different" its actually happening on a scale that dwarfs our property boom, which I think is the most worrying thing going on in the economic world. China are having a very big property boom.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Then you would know that the Argentine financial crisis (either one) was not directly comparable to Ireland.

It's not a mirror image, no. I don't think I claimed it was? Do you think that living in post-default Argentina is hindering my understanding of the sort of problems that a bank collapse in Ireland would entail?

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Glad to see those degrees/life experience being put to use.

What?

Your posts are usually a lot better than that.

I'm bate from a hangover.

Ronin247

Einhard wrote: »

I think it's very unfair to make a moral judgement against Brian lenihan in such a manner, and label him a "bad man". It may have been a poor decision, and he may have been incompetent, but that does not make him a bad man. The crisis facing the government was unprecedented in Irish history, and the choices stark. Nobody knew what exactly would happen either way. It's all very well to sit here a few years after the fact and, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, conemn the man in such harsh terms, whilst conveniently ignoring the fact that the bailout was supported by both SF and FG, and was welcomed by many economic commentators.

We are to blame.Us.YOU and I.

We are the people who voted in the politicians who appointed the regulator who did f*ck all to stop the bankers giving easy credit that the dogs on the street knew couldnt last.

It is very easy to point the finger at bankers etc and Lenihan had a large degree of responsibility because he gave a "blanket" guarantee instead of letting Anglo crash and prop up the rest but WE voted this clown into office,WE are the ones meekly accepting the austerity and WE are the ones that the Greeks are carrying signs about, mocking us.


Viva la revolucion! ...not

KeithAFC

Most people don't know what they are on about when they mention bankers. Socialism is what is driving these protests. In my opinion, the police need to be more heavy handed and try to stop the rioting we have seen in Rome.

homerjay2005

the "golden circle" are the first group anyway, fitzpatrick and his buddies who used the banks money, to reinvest it in Anglo.

they are as corrupt as it comes, lending money to developers who got deals they should never had got.

Monty Burnz

homerjay2005 wrote: »

the "golden circle" are the first group anyway, fitzpatrick and his buddies who used the banks money, to reinvest it in Anglo.

they are as corrupt as it comes, lending money to developers who got deals they should never had got.

Right, but who are 'the bankers' that the socialists and various other people are still saying we should rise up against, or whatever?

saywhatyousee

The whole problem is the private control of the money supply.Money should be interest free and given out by the government.Banks should be no more than a safe deposit box for your money.Its one of the greatest myth's ever fabricated that you need banks to run a economy.I am a small time investor also and i never keep more than 2% of my assets in cash.The problem is that the majority of people do not know what money actually is or how banks and money supply operates.In theory you could run the best most successful economy in the world,however when a central bank starts to call in debts that you fu**ed,because it cant be paid back because every bit of money issued is debt(with interest:pac:)Its a not so elaborate pyramid scheme.

4leto

saywhatyousee wrote: »

The whole problem is the private control of the money supply.Money should be interest free and given out by the government.Banks should be no more than a safe deposit box for your money.Its one of the greatest myth's ever fabricated that you need banks to run a economy.I am a small time investor also and i never keep more than 2% of my assets in cash.The problem is that the majority of people do not know what money actually is or how banks and money supply operates.In theory you could run the best most successful economy in the world,however when a central bank starts to call in debts that you fu**ed,because it cant be paid back because every bit of money issued is debt(with interest:pac:)Its a not so elaborate pyramid scheme.

But money is actual, it's a very real product, you can define as a unit of work.

So the value of a currency reflects the value of an economy and that economy productivity as in how much work and value it does and has.

So a central bank can't really stimulate that, its one of the reason communism failed, banks can because it is in their direct interest to recover their loans with profit. But as evident in Ireland and the world that can go pear shaped.

What the central bank should do and should have done, was regulate, but deregulation was the buzz word for the 90s and 00. That's what went wrong.

saywhatyousee

4leto wrote: »

But money is actual, it's a very real product, you can define as a unit of work.

So the value of a currency reflects the value of an economy and that economy productivity as in how much work and value it does and has.

So a central bank can't really stimulate that, its one of the reason communism failed, banks can because it is in their direct interest to recover their loans with profit. But as evident in Ireland and the world that can go pear shaped.

What the central bank should do and should have done, was regulate, but deregulation was the buzz word for the 90s and 00. That's what went wrong.

"Money" is a credit note to facilitate trade it is know more than a promise to pay.

SafeSurfer

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Right, but who are 'the bankers' that the socialists and various other people are still saying we should rise up against, or whatever?

What "socialists" are saying we should rise up against "the bankers"?


Who are these evil bankers? Or is it just a stupid cliche thrown out by folks on the left and those who don't have a clue how the world and the world of business work?

I think you know you have the answer to your question right there, so why ask a question you already know the answer to?

4leto

saywhatyousee wrote: »

"Money" is a credit note to facilitate trade it is know more than a promise to pay.

But the value of that note is as I said, The Zimbabwe note and a euro is a credit note to facilitate trade.

saywhatyousee

4leto wrote: »

But the value of that note is as I said, The Zimbabwe note and a euro is a credit note to facilitate trade.

Yes the value and denominations of the note's might change but in theory you can still just print them out of fresh air the only difference is you might have to add a few 0's.My head hurt's because i am trying to think of a way to simply explain this to the masses

Bishop_Donal

The failure rests with the regulator.

He and his office were responsible for vetting the eligibility of each of the senior managers in each of the licensed Banks in Ireland. Equally, he had teams who were responsible (via regular Bank inspections) to ensure that Banks were managing their affairs appropriately (i.e. avoiding sectoral over-concentrations / ensuring adequate capital / ensuring appropriate fund matching). Simple stuff really, but as the regulator (appointed by the ministry of finance, therefore in turn by the people) decided that 'Principle Based' regulation was the way to go, there was never a hard message delivered to any Bank.

So there you go. Ultimately the Bankers are you: Joe Public!! You put in a spineless regulator, and you reaped the rewards of the lax regulation (reduced tax / over paid public service / over generous social welfare support system).

And now it's time to pay for the party.:rolleyes:

4leto

saywhatyousee wrote: »

Yes the value and denominations of the note's might change but in theory you can still just print them out of fresh air the only difference is you might have to add a few 0's.My head hurt's because i am trying to think of a way to simply explain this to the masses

Well you could but they still have to reflect a value, print them out of thin air and they will soon have no value. As in Zimbabwe and Weimer republic and LOL perhaps soon Sterling and the Dollar.

msg11

Why are the Greeks going around with Signs mocking the Irish?

Is there a point in causing a protest that get's out of control so much to the point that it's just a riot?

The Greeks are making a show of themselves to the world. If I was to loan anybody money and I seen that type of carry on, I would think twice about it.

So if we the Irish decided to protest about this, what are we protesting for? And in reality, noting will come from it. We are still going to have to pay for this giant mess and the clean up for the riot.

As for who are the bankers, well I blame the CEOs of the banks then followed by the government.

The high earners in companys don't realise that if they took a massive pay cut of say 100,000 that could keep 4-5 low paid works on. But sadly the greed continues.

Printing money won't help this situation at all in fact it will just rise inflation, we will end up paying more for products. We will end up paying twice the tax, twice the price for products and still have the same debt I think. Not an expert , but I just can't see it helping.