Papiss Cissé

[Guest neesy111]

Wonga are cunts and I wish we had a different sponsor.

 

I only think we choose Wonga because they agreed to the rights to SJP and get the club out of that PR mess.

[Stifler]

So, so gullible. Not saying the governments, or indeed us, as in bank customers, aren't partly to blame, and neither do I want to condone the business practices of Wonga in any way, shape or form, but this concept that banks are doing society a service rather than leaching on it is frankly laughable if it wasn't so tragic that most people can't see them for what they are and actually believe that without banks in their current form there couldn't be prosperity or even happiness.

True, without a bank I and everyone else would be mugged on pay day every month, without a bank I will never be able to buy a house, without a bank I couldn't afford to insure my car. Without the BOE students wouldn't be able to afford to go to uni.

 

Banks are crucial to our society, however it is this fact that makes them untouchable.

 

No, Governments and Regulators allowed them to get away with murder and made too large to fail.  Just like how all these tax avoiders are getting away without paying tax because governments have allowed them to do so.

Without a doubt, hence why people want reforms. However it doesn't take away from the fact that it was them who still cairred out the actions that put the world in this mess.

 

In my opinion the government and the regulators are only party to blame, the main instigators are the bankers and the people borrowing without means to pay back.

[Stifler]

Wonga are cunts and I wish we had a different sponsor.

 

I only think we choose Wonga because they agreed to the rights to SJP and get the club out of that PR mess.

Nah, I think all that is an after thought with SJP, I don't think they paid anything for the rights. The club made a mess twice over, 1. for renaming SJP, 2. For letting Wonga become the sponsors. The club just fixed the situation to try and ease pressure off both decisions.

 

The only reason we have Wonga is because they paid the most for the rights.

[Unbelievable]

So, so gullible. Not saying the governments, or indeed us, as in bank customers, aren't partly to blame, and neither do I want to condone the business practices of Wonga in any way, shape or form, but this concept that banks are doing society a service rather than leaching on it is frankly laughable if it wasn't so tragic that most people can't see them for what they are and actually believe that without banks in their current form there couldn't be prosperity or even happiness.

True, without a bank I and everyone else would be mugged on pay day every month, without a bank I will never be able to buy a house, without a bank I couldn't afford to insure my car. Without the BOE students wouldn't be able to afford to go to uni.

 

Banks are crucial to our society, however it is this fact that makes them untouchable.

 

No, Governments and Regulators allowed them to get away with murder and made too large to fail.  Just like how all these tax avoiders are getting away without paying tax because governments have allowed them to do so.

 

Governments are at the leash of banks, much in the same way nearly every company or individual in the "civilised" world is. They have hardly any power over them; in fact the reverse is true.

[Guest neesy111]

Wonga are cunts and I wish we had a different sponsor.

 

I only think we choose Wonga because they agreed to the rights to SJP and get the club out of that PR mess.

Nah, I think all that is an after thought with SJP, I don't think they paid anything for the rights. The club made a mess twice over, 1. for renaming SJP, 2. For letting Wonga become the sponsors. The club just fixed the situation to try and ease pressure off both decisions.

 

The only reason we have Wonga is because they paid the most for the rights.

 

They did pay for the rights. 

[Mick]

The banks f***ed the economy over by doing 2 things.

 

1. Lending money to people who clearly couldn't afford it thus creating toxic debt. (If you want I'll let you have the skutters shouldn't have got in to debt when they know they couldn't afford it side of this argument)

 

2. Selling and buying toxic debt.

 

Banking was basically de-regulated by governments and people took advantage of what the banks offered without thinking about the long term effects of the debt they were getting into.

 

Consumers thought that the housing bubble wouldn’t burst so they took advantage of equity they had in houses and overstretched because they wrongly thought that house prices would carry on spiralling.

 

House prices rose weekly, governments, banks and consumers thought that a person buying a house for £100k was safe because a year later it would be worth in the region of £125k and the rise in property value would out-strip the debt incurred to buy the house originally.  That's where the toxic debt was coming from, the housing bubble burst, just like it was always going to.

 

People and governments were relying on house prices going up and up without understanding or worse still, caring that it was unsustainable.

 

We're all to blame for the state of the global economy.

[Unbelievable]

Ask yourselves this very simple question: how come practically every government, company and household in the Western world is in ever increasing debt? Shouldn't it be so in theory that for every pound loaned out to somebody there should be a pound deposited by somebody else? If nearly everybody is in debt, who is lending it to them (us)?

[Mick]

Without a doubt, hence why people want reforms. However it doesn't take away from the fact that it was them who still cairred out the actions that put the world in this mess.

 

In my opinion the government and the regulators are only party to blame, the main instigators are the bankers and the people borrowing without means to pay back.

 

People did have the means to pay the banks back until the housing bubble burst.  Somebody borrowing a large proportion of his or her wage earlier and earlier in the week are bound to run out of a means of paying off the debt.

 

If somebody is so close to the breadline that they have to borrow to live, they are bound to have a problem the following week when they have the same amount of money less the interest paid the week before.

 

I haven't tried to get my head around the economics of a payday loan yet but I would think the lender is praying on the worse off knowing that they can't really lose.  I would think that the payday loan company has them hooked the first time they give out a loan because the person taking it out will be in more need of a loan after the first one.

 

I've had bank loans to buy cars while bringing up a family and paid them off and wouldn't dream of taking out a loan with a payday lender.

 

Trying to compare a bank with a company like Wonga is crazy and seems to be people trying to justify our sponsorship and nothing else.

[Guest neesy111]

Ask yourselves this very simple question: how come practically every government, company and household in the Western world is in ever increasing debt? Shouldn't it be so in theory that for every pound loaned out to somebody there should be a pound deposited by somebody else? If nearly everybody is in debt, who is lending it to them (us)?

 

Most of UK government debt is owned by the public.

[Unbelievable]

Ask yourselves this very simple question: how come practically every government, company and household in the Western world is in ever increasing debt? Shouldn't it be so in theory that for every pound loaned out to somebody there should be a pound deposited by somebody else? If nearly everybody is in debt, who is lending it to them (us)?

 

Most of UK government debt is owned by the public.

 

The public who is also in ever increasing debt? Unless you believe all those people with mortgages have savings that exceed those loans, in which case it begs the question why they would take out a loan (mortgage) in the first place...

[Mick]

Ask yourselves this very simple question: how come practically every government, company and household in the Western world is in ever increasing debt? Shouldn't it be so in theory that for every pound loaned out to somebody there should be a pound deposited by somebody else? If nearly everybody is in debt, who is lending it to them (us)?

 

That's far too simplistic, nobody lends £1 out to get £1 back for a start.  The economy is far too complex for us to discuss it properly on here anyway.  It's a head bursting topic really as money has to constantly move to keep the economy going and governments have to constantly print additional money.  They would have to do that anyway just to stand still as the population grows.

[Unbelievable]

Ask yourselves this very simple question: how come practically every government, company and household in the Western world is in ever increasing debt? Shouldn't it be so in theory that for every pound loaned out to somebody there should be a pound deposited by somebody else? If nearly everybody is in debt, who is lending it to them (us)?

 

That's far too simplistic, nobody lends £1 out to get £1 back for a start.  The economy is far too complex for us to discuss it properly on here anyway.  It's a head bursting topic really as money has to constantly move to keep the economy going and governments have to constantly print additional money.  They would have to do that anyway just to stand still as the population grows.

 

So close, yet so far away from understanding. It's not the governments constantly printing additional money, it's the banks!

[Guest neesy111]

Ask yourselves this very simple question: how come practically every government, company and household in the Western world is in ever increasing debt? Shouldn't it be so in theory that for every pound loaned out to somebody there should be a pound deposited by somebody else? If nearly everybody is in debt, who is lending it to them (us)?

 

That's far too simplistic, nobody lends £1 out to get £1 back for a start.  The economy is far too complex for us to discuss it properly on here anyway.  It's a head bursting topic really as money has to constantly move to keep the economy going and governments have to constantly print additional money.  They would have to do that anyway just to stand still as the population grows.

 

So close, yet so far away from understanding. It's not the governments constantly printing additional money, it's the banks!

 

The only banks that can print money are the central banks of a country, who in turn lend this to the banks.  Which is otherwise known as quantitative easing.

 

Remember when there was a run on Northern Rock, it was because they asked the Bank of England for a short term loan, they couldn't fucking create money at off thin air as you believe they can.

[Stifler]

Without a doubt, hence why people want reforms. However it doesn't take away from the fact that it was them who still cairred out the actions that put the world in this mess.

 

In my opinion the government and the regulators are only party to blame, the main instigators are the bankers and the people borrowing without means to pay back.

 

People did have the means to pay the banks back until the housing bubble burst.  Somebody borrowing a large proportion of his or her wage earlier and earlier in the week are bound to run out of a means of paying off the debt.

 

If somebody is so close to the breadline that they have to borrow to live, they are bound to have a problem the following week when they have the same amount of money less the interest paid the week before.

 

I haven't tried to get my head around the economics of a payday loan yet but I would think the lender is praying on the worse off knowing that they can't really lose.  I would think that the payday loan company has them hooked the first time they give out a loan because the person taking it out will be in more need of a loan after the first one.

 

I've had bank loans to buy cars while bringing up a family and paid them off and wouldn't dream of taking out a loan with a payday lender.

 

Trying to compare a bank with a company like Wonga is crazy and seems to be people trying to justify our sponsorship and nothing else.

I'm not trying to compare Wonga with a bank. I've already said that banks are crucial to our society, I'm not happy about the bad things they have been caught doing in recent years but on the whole banks are good for us. I don't think our society needs nor should have pay day loan companies like Wonga.

 

Though I'm on pretty low wages and have pretty much next to no savings I think I have done well in keeping my finances in check. I have a contract phone which I pay in full every month, I have car insurance that is payed every month, I have a credit card that is mainly for building my credit rating for future by using it for paying for stuff that I would normally buy and then paying off before it occurs interest. I have an overdraft facility which I have never used.

 

I would very much recommend people building a credit rating up enough so they can get things like a credit card for when rainy days come along so they don't have to go to payday loan lenders.

[Stifler]

Ask yourselves this very simple question: how come practically every government, company and household in the Western world is in ever increasing debt? Shouldn't it be so in theory that for every pound loaned out to somebody there should be a pound deposited by somebody else? If nearly everybody is in debt, who is lending it to them (us)?

 

That's far too simplistic, nobody lends £1 out to get £1 back for a start.  The economy is far too complex for us to discuss it properly on here anyway.  It's a head bursting topic really as money has to constantly move to keep the economy going and governments have to constantly print additional money.  They would have to do that anyway just to stand still as the population grows.

 

So close, yet so far away from understanding. It's not the governments constantly printing additional money, it's the banks!

 

The only banks that can print money are the central banks of a country, who in turn lend this to the banks.  Which is otherwise known as quantitative easing.

 

Remember when there was a run on Northern Rock, it was because they asked the Bank of England for a short term loan, they couldn't fucking create money at off thin air as you believe they can.

They can but it devalues all the current money in circulation causing inflation.

 

Also it's worth noting that you point out Northern Rocks request for a short term loan. Did you know that they only requested it for just incase, they actually never needed it but the government forced them to take it once it was publicised that they had requested one. They never accessed the funds from that loan and were prepared to pay it back before it was due to be paid. They were then nationalised and then were given a 2nd loan without them requesting it or needing it. They were then sold on at a profit. At the time Barclays and other banks also requested a short term loan yet their details were never publicised like Northern Rocks were. Labour well and truly sold Northern rock out, insisting on them taking out loans that they didn't need and paying them back with interested and then the sell off (which was agreed in principle before Labour left office).

[Unbelievable]

Ask yourselves this very simple question: how come practically every government, company and household in the Western world is in ever increasing debt? Shouldn't it be so in theory that for every pound loaned out to somebody there should be a pound deposited by somebody else? If nearly everybody is in debt, who is lending it to them (us)?

 

That's far too simplistic, nobody lends £1 out to get £1 back for a start.  The economy is far too complex for us to discuss it properly on here anyway.  It's a head bursting topic really as money has to constantly move to keep the economy going and governments have to constantly print additional money.  They would have to do that anyway just to stand still as the population grows.

 

So close, yet so far away from understanding. It's not the governments constantly printing additional money, it's the banks!

 

The only banks that can print money are the central banks of a country, who in turn lend this to the banks.  Which is otherwise known as quantitative easing.

 

Remember when there was a run on Northern Rock, it was because they asked the Bank of England for a short term loan, they couldn't f***ing create money at off thin air as you believe they can.

So gullible.. Firstly, banks can create money even if they don't actually print the notes. Secondly, who do you think "owns" or "directs" the central banks?

[Guest neesy111]

Ask yourselves this very simple question: how come practically every government, company and household in the Western world is in ever increasing debt? Shouldn't it be so in theory that for every pound loaned out to somebody there should be a pound deposited by somebody else? If nearly everybody is in debt, who is lending it to them (us)?

 

That's far too simplistic, nobody lends £1 out to get £1 back for a start.  The economy is far too complex for us to discuss it properly on here anyway.  It's a head bursting topic really as money has to constantly move to keep the economy going and governments have to constantly print additional money.  They would have to do that anyway just to stand still as the population grows.

 

So close, yet so far away from understanding. It's not the governments constantly printing additional money, it's the banks!

 

The only banks that can print money are the central banks of a country, who in turn lend this to the banks.  Which is otherwise known as quantitative easing.

 

Remember when there was a run on Northern Rock, it was because they asked the Bank of England for a short term loan, they couldn't f***ing create money at off thin air as you believe they can.

So gullible.. Firstly, banks can create money even if they don't actually print the notes. Secondly, who do you think "owns" or "directs" the central banks?

 

Forget it.  You're an absolute cretin.  Another one for the ignore list.

[Unbelievable]

Ask yourselves this very simple question: how come practically every government, company and household in the Western world is in ever increasing debt? Shouldn't it be so in theory that for every pound loaned out to somebody there should be a pound deposited by somebody else? If nearly everybody is in debt, who is lending it to them (us)?

 

That's far too simplistic, nobody lends £1 out to get £1 back for a start.  The economy is far too complex for us to discuss it properly on here anyway.  It's a head bursting topic really as money has to constantly move to keep the economy going and governments have to constantly print additional money.  They would have to do that anyway just to stand still as the population grows.

 

So close, yet so far away from understanding. It's not the governments constantly printing additional money, it's the banks!

 

The only banks that can print money are the central banks of a country, who in turn lend this to the banks.  Which is otherwise known as quantitative easing.

 

Remember when there was a run on Northern Rock, it was because they asked the Bank of England for a short term loan, they couldn't f***ing create money at off thin air as you believe they can.

So gullible.. Firstly, banks can create money even if they don't actually print the notes. Secondly, who do you think "owns" or "directs" the central banks?

 

Forget it.  You're an absolute cretin.  Another one for the ignore list.

 

What!? You don't understand how banking works, so I try to explain it to you, and that makes me a cretin? Alright son, bury your head in the sand... Government debt is owned to the public FFS

[Mick]

 

 

So close, yet so far away from understanding. It's not the governments constantly printing additional money, it's the banks!

 

The Bank of England controls the printing of money and guess what, it's a nationalised company.

[Segun Oluwaniyi]

Ask yourselves this very simple question: how come practically every government, company and household in the Western world is in ever increasing debt? Shouldn't it be so in theory that for every pound loaned out to somebody there should be a pound deposited by somebody else? If nearly everybody is in debt, who is lending it to them (us)?

 

That's far too simplistic, nobody lends £1 out to get £1 back for a start.  The economy is far too complex for us to discuss it properly on here anyway.  It's a head bursting topic really as money has to constantly move to keep the economy going and governments have to constantly print additional money.  They would have to do that anyway just to stand still as the population grows.

 

So close, yet so far away from understanding. It's not the governments constantly printing additional money, it's the banks!

You need to differentiate between creating money and printing money, so people can understand what the hell you are talking about. Preferably not in a topic about Papiss Cisse.

 

I'm sick of hearing about this Wonga nonsense. If you want to take issue with someone do with the state and your leaders.

[NEEJ]

Papiss Demba Banknotes.

[Unbelievable]

 

 

So close, yet so far away from understanding. It's not the governments constantly printing additional money, it's the banks!

 

The Bank of England controls the printing of money and guess what, it's a nationalised company.

 

I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. The physical printing of money may be controlled by the BoE, the creation of money certainly isn't (only a small percentage of the total sum of money is in the form of notes nowadays). The BoE was set up as a private bank to be a lender to government in 1694, given a royal charter, and apparently nationalised in 1946, some 250 years later. Make of that what you will. What I make of it is that, much in the same way the Federal Reserve does in the US, the central bank looks after the interests of its founders first and foremost, not the general public.

 

Apologies also for the continued OT posts. Maybe this stuff deserves its own thread in Chat..?

[Incognito]

Ask yourselves this very simple question: how come practically every government, company and household in the Western world is in ever increasing debt? Shouldn't it be so in theory that for every pound loaned out to somebody there should be a pound deposited by somebody else? If nearly everybody is in debt, who is lending it to them (us)?

 

That's far too simplistic, nobody lends £1 out to get £1 back for a start.  The economy is far too complex for us to discuss it properly on here anyway.  It's a head bursting topic really as money has to constantly move to keep the economy going and governments have to constantly print additional money.  They would have to do that anyway just to stand still as the population grows.

 

So close, yet so far away from understanding. It's not the governments constantly printing additional money, it's the banks!

 

The only banks that can print money are the central banks of a country, who in turn lend this to the banks.  Which is otherwise known as quantitative easing.

 

Remember when there was a run on Northern Rock, it was because they asked the Bank of England for a short term loan, they couldn't fucking create money at off thin air as you believe they can.

They can but it devalues all the current money in circulation causing inflation.

 

Also it's worth noting that you point out Northern Rocks request for a short term loan. Did you know that they only requested it for just incase, they actually never needed it but the government forced them to take it once it was publicised that they had requested one. They never accessed the funds from that loan and were prepared to pay it back before it was due to be paid. They were then nationalised and then were given a 2nd loan without them requesting it or needing it. They were then sold on at a profit. At the time Barclays and other banks also requested a short term loan yet their details were never publicised like Northern Rocks were. Labour well and truly sold Northern rock out, insisting on them taking out loans that they didn't need and paying them back with interested and then the sell off (which was agreed in principle before Labour left office).

 

Preposterous, even for you. What did you expect Alastair Darling to do? The only alternative to nationalising Northern Rock was to let it declare itself bankrupt.

[Flip]

Bank of England scored for Senegal. 1-0 right now against Angola.

[Unbelievable]

 

This a friendly?