On the positive side, huuuge support for the Occupy London Stock Exchange protest

[breadandbutterfly]

Cast your vote too if you wish, or just revel in being, if not 1 of the 99%, at least currently 1 of the 87.5%. :)

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/poll/2011/oct/17/occupy-london-poll

'Elucidate me'

I fear it would be a wasted effort

GasG

How about:

Running a global ponzi scheme.

Crashing the UK economy with their greed.

Being bailed out with public money to the detriment of the public and STILL wanting their bloody bonuses.

Being a big big part of the cause of the rise in unemployment and cuts in social services.

That?s just for starters.

goodasgold, don't be put off by rude replies.

Different people think different things about what teh bankers did. Some think it wasn't their fault, others think that they put teh world's financial system at risk by gambling recklessly on derivatives and making loans which had no prospect of being repayed. They then got bailed out by the politicians who handed over teh public's money to them because they were "too big to fail".

I fear it would be a wasted effort.

Or likely you have no answer and as I have long suspected are full of shit.

Even LFN or SWC who's politics and cold hearted and sometimes in the case of LFN inhuman opinions I detest can by their lights put up an argument to support their points of view unlike yourself.

I don't like to stoop to debating with people who think I am "full of shit". I can't help you, you need professional help.

I don't like to stoop to debating with people who think I am "full of shit". I can't help you, you need professional help.

You did not enter a debate even before I decided once and for all you are full of shit and informed you of that fact so that can hardly be an excuse for not providing an answer to my quite reasonable questions.

Claig, thanks for the actual response.

They are criticized now for not lending money. Should they lend money or not. The risk is higher now, but people and businesses especially need the money now.

I don't think that all bankers did what you have said btw, look at C Hoare.

They are criticized now for not lending money. Should they lend money or not. The risk is higher now, but people and businesses especially need the money now.

Lots of companies need short to medium term loans to expand, money has been given to the banks by the government for that purpose but they are sitting on the money or only loaning at stupid rates of interest that is why the government are considering loaning direct to business and cutting out the banks.

I don't think that all bankers did what you have said btw, look at C Hoare.

And the Co-Op bank amongst others then again Lehman's perpetrated the crash, I am still waiting for the "punishment" of the busted banks auditors who turned a blind eye or colluded to hide the banks debts.

Tony Blair runs a 'Faith Foundation'. He said he was a 'straight kinda guy'. Did yoiu believe him?

I think Jesus Christ was selfless and genuine and he said something about how difficult itweas for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. I don't believe that teh majority of billionaires are selfless and genuine when they support charities. I think much of it is done for image and influence. I prefer the kindness of people who work freely for people suffering, rather than the mega rich who just hand over a small portion of their money. But the truly deserving people get no recognition, unlike the Buffetts who get mentioned in all of the newspapers.

goodasgold, yes they should lend money to businesses. But too often they are not and are starving businesses of teh funds they need.

Hardly any of teh bankers on their huge salaries and their bonuses are actually responsible for what happened. They are all just cogs in the wheel. They may think tehy are big fish, but tehy aren't and, just like Fred the Shred, their fortunes can change in a flash and they can get laid off just like anyone else.

The real decisions are made right at the top. The system is established right at the top, and all the rich bankers are just employees working for the system. But those right at the top knew the game, they loosened credit, knowing they would eventually pull the plug and rein it back in. They allowed the derivative gambling to continue, knowing tha tthey would eventually pull the plug. As always these things are done for power and money and influence by billionaires (many of whom give lavishly to charity).

Newwave they have to sit on the money. They have new capital requirements set upon them by government. This is about accountancy and I think that the banks would rather use the money to turn a profit, which would help businesses, and so the economy, and anybody who might have a pension fund. It's what they do.

Claig my dad is not a banker, he is an oil man! but he thinks he has got a lot out of life and wants to give someting back. He is going to volunteer his and my brother's time at a soup kitchen in Texas. Not for image, influence or pr. Just because he is in a position to do it and wants to. Does it matter how rich you are when you agree to help others?

So Claig you just hate the top executive layer of bankers? I have friends that work for banks that are single mothers in their twenties, hardly on above minimum wage. How can anybody lump them together with traders or directors?

Good for you dad.
'Does it matter how rich you are when you agree to help others?'

I think it does matter. I think you should question teh motives of the truly mega rich billionaires. Their motives may in fact not be what they seem. Their foundations may not be as good as they first appear. Some of thse people have the world and to give away some of it to charity is nothing to them. The Devil offered Jesus the whole world, but he was no good. Of course not all billionaires are in it for themselves, but I suspect that many are.

People are also right to question the Church and their good works, as they sit on vast fortunes which they invest in the stock market rather than in God's people.

Am I the only one who is confused? newwave is giving answers that strangely could be mine but appears to have spun a personal argument with claig out of somewhere, claig's deep cynicism is interesting if somewhat unlimited for my tastes, and a poster called goodasgold is asking the kind of questions my dd could have answered at primary school. And actually appears not to know the answers.

How did my thread end up here?

Claig my dad is not a banker, he is an oil man! but he thinks he has got a lot out of life and wants to give someting back. He is going to volunteer his and my brother's time at a soup kitchen in Texas. Not for image, influence or pr. Just because he is in a position to do it and wants to. Does it matter how rich you are when you agree to help others?

Gates has told his children they will "only" receive 5 million dollars each on his death, a big sum by most peoples standards but a drop in the ocean in Gates case. The bulk of the fortune (and Buffets) is to go the a charitable foundation set up by Gates and Buffet amongst others.

I'm with newwave on billionaires giving money to charity, by the way. Got to be better than ones who don't, surely? Likewise ones who ask to pay more tax. Do I care why they do it (nice guy, publicity, etc)? No.

'So Claig you just hate the top executive layer of bankers?'

I don't hate anyone. I said that even Fred the Shred is small fry. None of these people are responsible. They are all just cogs in the wheel. But there are super billionaires who don't turn up at the office at 7 a.m. who are responsible.

'Do I care why they do it'

You should care. Do you know teh aims of all of teh charities that they set up? Do you think they all have equally good aims? Do some have aims that may not benefit humanity?

So claig, let's say your big conspiracy is right. What do you suggest ordinary people do about it? If it's just post conspiracy theories on internet sites, it all seems a bit pointless.

Liam Fox had a charity, I think. Apparently he had millionaire backers. What were the charity's aims?

Blair fought "humanitarian" wars.

Just because something is described as "humanitarian" or a charity doesn't mean it will help the world's population.

claig, re previous post, I don't believe it is my duty to police all charities in case they are bogus, no. I am kind of busy, and doubt I'd know what to do even if I did discover something dodgy.

I repeat - supposing these conspracies are all true and you can prove all of them - what then? Where do you go from there?

'What do you suggest ordinary people do about it?'

I don't suggest anything. I don't think ordinary people can do much about anything. It is billioanires like Buffett who have real power. All you can do is understand the world and how it works. I don't think ,uch can change, but hats off to people who do try and change things, but they should first understand how things really work or they may just be tricked into facilitating their own oppression.

'I don't believe it is my duty to police all charities in case they are bogus, no. I am kind of busy, and doubt I'd know what to do even if I did discover something dodgy.'

I think you should try and remain informed, otherwise you could be giving your money to Liam Fox's charity, whose aims you may not in fact agree with.

Fair enough.

You seem a big fan of the Tea Party. Am I right here? Do you believe they will change things for the better?

By the way, I think I'm safe from being asked to donate to Liam Fox's charities. Let's just say I am neither in the right income bracket and nor do I feature high on lists of Tory supporters. :)