Bank Bail Out's

[buddy]

Can anyone please provide me any number of reasons why the Governments involved in bailing out the Banks recently to the tune of Billions/Trillions of Pounds/Dollars did not completely pay off peoples Mortgages?

Instead of the money being paid directly by the Government to the Banks, the mortgage money would have recirculated through the household mortgage account and back to the Banks anyway, thereby still paying the Banks Billions/Trillions but would have had the benefit of releasing huge amounts of disposable income for a large portion of the population that in turn would stimulate a Country's economy.

Some reasons I have heard against this idea are -

1) House prices would go up??...How?

2) European Union wouldnt allow it and no reason given?

3) The Central Bankers who are in real control of the Government/s would lose out on high interest on long term income streams (debt slavery) and would not approve it?

4) Rioting on the streets by the those renting and other dissaffected groups without mortgages?...but you could compensate?

5) Administrative nightmare?

Before anybody states what has this got to do with Thailand consider this, if the mortgages had been paid off all the released disposable income that would otherwise have been spent on these Mortagages would pay inevitably for holidays to, and for purchases in Thailand and therefore would stimulate the Thai economy.

[PattayaParent]

Answer: because the banks would not have made any money if the governments had done that.

[clinique]

agreed, the governments and the bankers are and always have been in couhouts,,,

why would they pay off your mortgage when they can help the banks out and make afortune on their shares...

paying off mortgages does nothing to line the pockets of those in power is the answer

[thrilled]

The bailouts are just beginning,the PIGS need bailing out.So it's going to ne A never ending process.

Ya can't spend more than ya bring in.

[MAJIC]

Main reason IMO why the Banks were bailed out rather than give freebies to back to customers:

The World Banking system is like an intertwined spiders web/pack of cards,all heavily trading with, and loaning money

to each other,pull one piece out of the pack and the whole lot collapses,which will have a knock on effect around the Worldwide Banking system.

So World Banks and their Governments had no options but to bail them out,and head off a possible Depression on top of the already arrived Recession.

Thailands Banks had very little exposure to so called "Toxic loans" so came through the financial crisis reletively unscathed.

[Rinrada]

....and the Gov will make a profit when they sell them back...in fact on paper they already have.....

RBS is up from nationalisation price by....... £2.5 Billion.....

[BLUEEYEDTHAI]

The bailouts are just beginning,the PIGS need bailing out.So it's going to ne A never ending process.

Ya can't spend more than ya bring in.

Oh, but you can spend more and they do.

[buddy]

Main reason IMO why the Banks were bailed out rather than give freebies to back to customers:

The World Banking system is like an intertwined spiders web/pack of cards,all heavily trading with, and loaning money

to each other,pull one piece out of the pack and the whole lot collapses,which will have a knock on effect around the Worldwide Banking system.

So World Banks and their Governments had no options but to bail them out,and head off a possible Depression on top of the already arrived Recession.

Thailands Banks had very little exposure to so called "Toxic loans" so came through the financial crisis reletively unscathed.

But my point is the Banks would have still been paid back, so pulling one piece out of the pack and the whole lot collapsing would not have happened?

Peoples mortgages get paid off so a win win situation for them and a win win situation for the Banks?...and a win win situation for a stimulated World economy.

Winners all round, however it still doesn't explain why Governments didn't do it?

[PattayaParent]

Because if nobody owed any money to the banks then the banks would not make any money in interest from loans.

They would then be more likely to go bankrupt because they are paying OUT (staff salaries and interest on deposits) than they are receiving IN.

[jesimps]

Main reason IMO why the Banks were bailed out rather than give freebies to back to customers:

The World Banking system is like an intertwined spiders web/pack of cards,all heavily trading with, and loaning money

to each other,pull one piece out of the pack and the whole lot collapses,which will have a knock on effect around the Worldwide Banking system.

So World Banks and their Governments had no options but to bail them out,and head off a possible Depression on top of the already arrived Recession.

Thailands Banks had very little exposure to so called "Toxic loans" so came through the financial crisis reletively unscathed.

But my point is the Banks would have still been paid back, so pulling one piece out of the pack and the whole lot collapsing would not have happened?

Peoples mortgages get paid off so a win win situation for them and a win win situation for the Banks?...and a win win situation for a stimulated World economy.

Winners all round, however it still doesn't explain why Governments didn't do it?

Because this way the banks get paid twice, once by the government bail-out and once by the people with the mortgages. If the money went straight to the people who then paid the bank, the bank would have only got one lot of money.

[buddy]

Main reason IMO why the Banks were bailed out rather than give freebies to back to customers:

The World Banking system is like an intertwined spiders web/pack of cards,all heavily trading with, and loaning money

to each other,pull one piece out of the pack and the whole lot collapses,which will have a knock on effect around the Worldwide Banking system.

So World Banks and their Governments had no options but to bail them out,and head off a possible Depression on top of the already arrived Recession.

Thailands Banks had very little exposure to so called "Toxic loans" so came through the financial crisis reletively unscathed.

But my point is the Banks would have still been paid back, so pulling one piece out of the pack and the whole lot collapsing would not have happened?

Peoples mortgages get paid off so a win win situation for them and a win win situation for the Banks?...and a win win situation for a stimulated World economy.

Winners all round, however it still doesn't explain why Governments didn't do it?

Because this way the banks get paid twice, once by the government bail-out and once by the people with the mortgages. If the money went straight to the people who then paid the bank, the bank would have only got one lot of money.

I was hoping for an answer what the Government/s gave the reason for not paying the mortagages off?

[sarahsbloke]

The best way to control a population is through wage slavery.

1) encourage your population to buy property.

2) allow them huge loans to buy the property.

3) it doesn't matter how bad working conditions get, they still work.

Owning property is not all that good an idea, without owning property your life and choices are much more flexable.

Country with biggest proportion of home-owners ...... Pakistan

Country with smallest proportion of home owners ...... Germany.

Now try to explain how Pakistan has more financially acute citizens than Germany?

[Pakboong]

There is no simple answer. Obviously, the banks will get the money and will ultimately own the forclosed property. A double whammy for the banks.

The political influence of the international bankers is the vast unknown. They play a game so above the rim that it is virtually impossible for us mere mortals to comprehend their motives. The Rothchild family of Europe own/operate virtually all the world's central banks to include the Bank of Thailand. Undstanding their relationship to the process is difficult. They certainly don't care about money on any small scale They think in the trillions while most countries operate in the billions.

[Pakboong]

There is no simple answer. Obviously, the banks will get the money and will ultimately own the forclosed property. A double whammy for the banks.

The political influence of the international bankers is the vast unknown. They play a game so above the rim that it is virtually impossible for us mere mortals to comprehend their motives. The Rothchild family of Europe own/operate virtually all the world's central banks to include the Bank of Thailand. Undstanding their relationship to the process is difficult. They certainly don't care about money on any small scale They think in the trillions while most countries operate in the billions.

[flying]

Infamous Quote from Mayer Amschel Rothschild

"Give me control of a nation's money

and I care not who makes the laws."

[hhgz]

"Can anyone please provide me any number of reasons why the Governments involved in bailing out the Banks recently to the tune of Billions/Trillions of Pounds/Dollars did not completely pay off peoples Mortgages?"

Sure, but I bet that wouldn't accept the answer. Many people believe that the "bailouts" were gifts. That simply is not true. The "bailouts" were loans. Just like other loans, some of the money won't be paid back. But, much of the bailout money that was loaned to US institutions has already been paid back with interest. You probably don't accept that, and that's OK.

Some home owners with mortgages have not been a able to pay their mortgages, and your idea of lending money to someone who has demonstrated that he can't pay the money back is a terrible idea.

"Infamous Quote from Mayer Amschel Rothschild: 'Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws.'"

Yeah, infamous, especially for a guy who has been dead for almost 200 years. Most posters are mentioning laws that allowed a problem to happen, and you found a quote which specifically excludes laws. Great.

[H2oDunc]

The whole banking system is based on organised global fraud. If any other business did what the banks do via fractional reserve banking it would be illegal. Just look at Bernie Madoff. he got stiffed big time for doing exactly what the banks have been doing for years. The only difference is he was not a bank so what he did was illegal. Have a read of this article and it will give you an insight into the world of finance.

http://uruknet.info/index.php?p=m65575&amp...;size=1&l=e

American based but the same goes for the Bank of England and all other major EU and worldwide banks.

Read it and weep!

And people say Thailand is corrupt.

[teletiger]

So World Banks and their Governments had no options but to bail them out,and head off a possible Depression on top of the already arrived Recession.

Ohh, but they did have an option and chose not to use it. It's called the free market. Let it do the job it was designed for.

As for heading off a possible depression.....coming to a European living room very close to you, real soon. Worse still, Government default. Try 'frozen personal accounts', retirement accounts taken over, banks closed, pensions slashed, 30% Gov. jobs gone. Rioting, looting......Overly dramatic? We'll see.

My little Baan in Issan won't even notice. Oil @ $220 per barrel. Not to worry, just put more coconut oil in the mix.

Regards.

[buddy]

So World Banks and their Governments had no options but to bail them out,and head off a possible Depression on top of the already arrived Recession.

Ohh, but they did have an option and chose not to use it. It's called the free market. Let it do the job it was designed for.

As for heading off a possible depression.....coming to a European living room very close to you, real soon. Worse still, Government default. Try 'frozen personal accounts', retirement accounts taken over, banks closed, pensions slashed, 30% Gov. jobs gone. Rioting, looting......Overly dramatic? We'll see.

My little Baan in Issan won't even notice. Oil @ $220 per barrel. Not to worry, just put more coconut oil in the mix.

Regards.

teletiger, Exactly, There were several choices the Governments could have made and the free market being one of them,

However they chose the worst possibly choice for there own populations but the best option for the Banks...the Banks get paid twice.

Why should Mr Greek and his family who have been working hard all his life have to suffer at the hands of these Bankers and there middle men (the Governments) anymore.

Just yesterday like a sting from a dying Wasp the Labour Chancellor of the UK committed 15 Billion pounds of money that is not his to prop up a Euro currency that the UK is not even a member of, why doesn't he give away a few Billion pounds to the Tongan Pa'anga currency while he is at it, as he is not accountable and nobody in the electorate can prevent this if the Banks instruct him to.

Will it take blood on the streets of Europe and the USA for change to happen?

This system has to be peacefully changed, if not what teletiger has prophesied will start to come true.

[Trickcyclist]

Watched a schmoe from Goldman Sachs being interviewed by 'top financial interviewer' Charlie Rose. The guy didn't even know the difference between wrong and right! Are Charlie Rose and the rest just front men for the networks which are controlled by vested interests anyway and will never ask the real questions? Blow dried hair and orthodontry substitute for intelligence and probity in TV presenters.

If you're not on the inside, you're on the outside.

[PattayaParent]

So World Banks and their Governments had no options but to bail them out,and head off a possible Depression on top of the already arrived Recession.

Ohh, but they did have an option and chose not to use it. It's called the free market. Let it do the job it was designed for.

As for heading off a possible depression.....coming to a European living room very close to you, real soon. Worse still, Government default. Try 'frozen personal accounts', retirement accounts taken over, banks closed, pensions slashed, 30% Gov. jobs gone. Rioting, looting......Overly dramatic? We'll see.

My little Baan in Issan won't even notice. Oil @ $220 per barrel. Not to worry, just put more coconut oil in the mix.

Regards.

But then all of the banks would have collapsed, plus all the companies and especially governments that are reliant on the money from the banks to avoid going under themselves.

[PattayaParent]

The best way to control a population is through wage slavery.

1) encourage your population to buy property.

2) allow them huge loans to buy the property.

3) it doesn't matter how bad working conditions get, they still work.

Owning property is not all that good an idea, without owning property your life and choices are much more flexable.

Country with biggest proportion of home-owners ...... Pakistan

Country with smallest proportion of home owners ...... Germany.

Now try to explain how Pakistan has more financially acute citizens than Germany?

That's more likely due to the relative cost of property.

your average carpenter in Pakistan can afford to buy a modest house there.

But an average carpenter in Germany has to dream of winning the Euromillions to be able to buy a dog kennel.

[buddy]

So World Banks and their Governments had no options but to bail them out,and head off a possible Depression on top of the already arrived Recession.

Ohh, but they did have an option and chose not to use it. It's called the free market. Let it do the job it was designed for.

As for heading off a possible depression.....coming to a European living room very close to you, real soon. Worse still, Government default. Try 'frozen personal accounts', retirement accounts taken over, banks closed, pensions slashed, 30% Gov. jobs gone. Rioting, looting......Overly dramatic? We'll see.

My little Baan in Issan won't even notice. Oil @ $220 per barrel. Not to worry, just put more coconut oil in the mix.

Regards.

But then all of the banks would have collapsed, plus all the companies and especially governments that are reliant on the money from the banks to avoid going under themselves.

When I mention Banks I mean Central Banks, 20 trillion is nothing to them, they will not collapse.

The Banks you refer to as collapsing I class as retail Banks...let the market weed them out, why should they above any other industrial sector get preferential treatment?

The Governments borrow from the Central Banks (Federal Reserve, Bank of England etc), If the retail Banks would have gone under, so what some thing would have taken there place.

Its similar to a developed retail system whereby the Money manufacturer & Distribution Centre combined (Central Bank), distributes the products (money) to the retail shop (Bank) on the high street...the Government does not borrow from the high street Banks but the Combined distribution Centre (Central Bank).

[PattayaParent]

^but the retail banks also borrow from the central banks so if the retail banks go under the central banks do not get their money back.

It's just a giant house of cards.

[buddy]

And just to let you know as it might slip past you if you hadn't noticed...

Another Bank bail out is taking place at this very moment under a different name with a 650 Billion pound bail out of the Euro currency.

Like a dying Wasps last sting, Alistair Darling the Labour Chancellor, denies the 650 Billion pound EU bailout exposes the UK taxpayer?

Go figure.

[buddy]

^but the retail banks also borrow from the central banks so if the retail banks go under the central banks do not get their money back.

It's just a giant house of cards.

Nope - They just write it off as they have always done with bad debt, creative accounting, cooking the books, call it what you want.

Sounds like you believe the Banks?

[fletchsmile]

Capital Adequacy Ratios/leverage. Injecting $1 into a bank's capital is worth many multiples of increasing a bank's assets by $1

Administratively much easier to make payments to a few hundred banks than millions of homeowners

Paying off mortgages = Risk it encourages people to default to claim the handout further aggravating the situation

On the face of it treats all members of the population equally (ignoring tax). In your scenario people who had their debt wiped out would be delighted. Honest hardworking people still trying to pay their mortgages would be disgusted. To compensate others as well would ramp up costs even more

Loans to banks from governments would eventually be repaid. Giving money to mortgagees on the other hand is an expense to the government. Adding a billions to the government balance sheet is much better than writing off billions as expenses

"Investments" or shares taken in banks can be sold at a later date to allow governments to get their money back

Governments injected liquidity into the system, and can withdraw when they think the time is right. Paying mortgages doesn't allow them to withdraw the money again and loses control on timing later

etc

Edited May 10, 2010 by fletchsmile

[PattayaParent]

^but the retail banks also borrow from the central banks so if the retail banks go under the central banks do not get their money back.

It's just a giant house of cards.

Nope - They just write it off as they have always done with bad debt, creative accounting, cooking the books, call it what you want.

Sounds like you believe the Banks?

Isn't that the same as not getting their money back?

[hagler]

Main reason IMO why the Banks were bailed out rather than give freebies to back to customers:

The World Banking system is like an intertwined spiders web/pack of cards,all heavily trading with, and loaning money

to each other,pull one piece out of the pack and the whole lot collapses,which will have a knock on effect around the Worldwide Banking system.

So World Banks and their Governments had no options but to bail them out,and head off a possible Depression on top of the already arrived Recession.

Thailands Banks had very little exposure to so called "Toxic loans" so came through the financial crisis reletively unscathed.

But my point is the Banks would have still been paid back, so pulling one piece out of the pack and the whole lot collapsing would not have happened?

Peoples mortgages get paid off so a win win situation for them and a win win situation for the Banks?...and a win win situation for a stimulated World economy.

Winners all round, however it still doesn't explain why Governments didn't do it?

Residential mortgages were just a small part of the problem relatively speaking. What would they have done about all the toxic commercial debt? The way they did it was the only way they could of to save the system from meltdown.

[teletiger]

Meltdown? Oh, you mean the 'meltdown' that the Fed said would happen if they didn't get TARP.

Do you also believe buffalo Ben and his "We saved the World" speech? Guess what. He saved the <deleted> of a lot of bankers, bondholders and speculators at the expense of the tax-payer. In fact American tax-payers for generations to come. 'And where are we now? The world needs saving again. Here comes TARP 2 Why? American banks are holding Trillions of debt on Europe. They made a bad bet and are coming unstuck....again.

The definition of an idiot is someone who repeats the same action and expects a different result.

People will tire of this rentier economy and look for justice. Viv la France.

Regards.