There goes civilisation...

what a stupid thing to say, although i am definitely against wanton spending and risk taking. its usually venture capitalism that has funded some of the best and most radical ideas of the last 20 years dealing with green energy and other industries that arent necessarily economically viable.

changed it now, i guess what i meant by saying that was that he had a go at me for slagging off bankers when in every post ant has made he has said he isnt a banker, just part of that business.

The first one was Bear Sterns.

If it's any consolation, the Fed refused to bail Lehman out. The markets are in turmoil because of it, but I support the decision, hopefully it'll scare everybody into behaving.

Bear Stearns, right. That's all it is, consolation, It's all just damage control from the first bail out until god knows when. Governments know they cant afford to make a habit of bail outs. Which is why this conglomeration of banks have come together to bail other institutions out if the need arises.

Lehmann brothers has been allowed to collapse as the lesser of the evils and look what chaos we're in. If Freddie, Fannie, or Bear were to collapse we'd be even more fucked.

changed it now, i guess what i meant by saying that was that he had a go at me for slagging off bankers when in every post ant has made he has said he isnt a banker, just part of that business.

whats wrong with being capitalist? sorry being a pedant.

well it's good to find out who's a capitalist pig and who's a pinko delusionist among us...

They do share the wealth. Most of the big investment banks have donation-matching programs, where the company will match the charity donations made by any of their employees, up to a certain amount per year. At my last company, it was £3000... if I'd donated £3000 to charity, that company would've matched it.

Because of that, I was able to raise £6000 in sponsorship for a London to Barcelona cycle ride, the money went to a children's medical research charity. Loads of people donated £20-50, and a good number of people put in £100-£300. And I'm not the only person who goes around collecting sponsorship for this sort of thing either.

Perhaps because everybody's always telling them what bastards they are...

bankers giving to charity is about as hypocritical as shooting someone so you can patch them up again.

well it's good to find out who's a capitalist pig and who's a pinko delusionist among us...

ethical capitalism is where its at.

bankers giving to charity is about as hypocritical as shooting someone so you can patch them up again.

its a foregone conclusion that they have the access to the money (<-- this is the part we should be angry about), so if they want to give it away. why not?

"Altruistic" would have been more elegant. "Hypocritical" is not quite the right word.

Hold on why am I banging on about semantics here - the entire financial world as we know it is collapsing...

They get a few dozen people each year asking for sponsorship. How much money have you donated to charity recently?

And just because a donation is a neat tax option to the corporation, doesn't mean the money is worth any less to the charity receiving it.

Sorry CG, my tone was a little harsh in the last message as I'm in the middle of rejecting funding applications, cos the person I work for today doesn't have enough money to fund them, and that sometimes makes me tetchy.

I give between 10-12% of my income in cash, and give my time and energy to 3 voluntary organisations outside of my work hours.

In terms of ethical fundraising, most of the charities I work for are stuck in that dilemma of where they source their income from.

One homelessness social enterprise adamantly doesn't take cash from donors (be they wealthy individuals, corporate sponsors, 'gambling' etc.) who don't follow their same notion of ethical investment (arms trade, exploitative labour, some chemicals stuff). On the obvious grounds that the money is profit from exploitation.

However, many banks / companies like to have them as part of their annual Corporate Social Responsibility pamphlet and are continually chasing them / sending them unsolicited cheques, full well knowing that they own shares or entire companies making armaments, or contribute to the root cause of some of the people's homelessness. Slightly stupid, but they're aware that the publicity of being linked to the 'worthy' is good PR and good for their share holders egos at Christmas.

Corporate donation in the UK is at a much lower level than that of the US, inherently because Henry the 8th established the notion of charity here, and the UK has a more established social support structure that isn't based on 'might is right'. I'm not saying that the individual's giving at your company is wrong, its just that lots of people regularly give, it doesn't matter whether they work for a blue chip or not.

(oh and before someone makes the comment, no, I'm not a street chugger).

I doubt the majority of people who slag off merchant bankers have ever set foot in said institutions.

Walk the walk before you talk the talk

I've never abused a child (other than myself), but I feel confident of judging those who have

Again... the current state of affairs is the aggregate of a lot of mistakes made by a lot of people. The actions of thousands and thousands of people came together to put us in the mess we're in, NOT JUST THE BANKERS.

Why isn't anybody bashing the idiots who decided it'd be a good idea to buy a house they can't afford? Because it's easier to villainize the rich, and sympathize with the poor. What the hell ever happened to good ol' common sense?

bankers giving to charity is about as hypocritical as shooting someone so you can patch them up again.

They get criticized for not giving money. And when they do, people say it's not good enough.

FFS, what more do you want from them?

whats wrong with being capitalist? sorry being a pedant.

this and that, what i was trying to say that taking it to its logical conclusion it is generally really destructive and bad, and i think that banking could be the perfect example for the destructiveness of it.

however it seems to work for everyone doesn't it so lets just leave it at that...

this and that, what i was trying to say that taking it to its logical conclusion it is generally really destructive and bad, and i think that banking could be the perfect example for the destructiveness of it.

however it seems to work for everyone doesn't it so lets just leave it at that...

Ok... I assume that free markets and efficient economies are good things.

What economic system would you propose to achieve those things, aside from capitalism?

They get a few dozen people each year asking for sponsorship. How much money have you donated to charity recently?

And just because a donation is a neat tax option to the corporation, doesn't mean the money is worth any less to the charity receiving it.

my parents raised £2k+ for kent air ambulance and another 2k for a defib unit for the local doctors surgery. they are pensioners living on a council estate. it took a lot of time and effort on their part to do so. the amounts you mentioned in your above posts to make financial institutions sound alturistic just make them look stingy.
your fundraising efforts are commendable those of the comany are a drop in the ocean.

I think it's because these people are told they can afford it, they are sold the idea of being a home owner, rather than a leaser. This all goes back to the U.S. surely where the banks gave mortgages to people who were pretty much incapable of repaying the loan/mortgage? That in my book would mean the lender was to blame for giving the loan out!

Again... the current state of affairs is the aggregate of a lot of mistakes made by a lot of people. The actions of thousands and thousands of people came together to put us in the mess we're in, NOT JUST THE BANKERS.

Why isn't anybody bashing the idiots who decided it'd be a good idea to buy a house they can't afford? Because it's easier to villainize the rich, and sympathize with the poor. What the hell ever happened to good ol' common sense?

i know its not just the bankers fault, but when everything settles the bankers are going to be able to get new jobs, new bonuses and will be able to go back to what they did before, however those people who got into too much debt and took out mortgages they couldnt keep up with are going to loose their houses, their possessions and are going to find it a whole lot harder to get back up again.

Right. No more posting on this thread from me. Spending way too much time on this. Must get back to work. (Hopefully I can continue to say that in the months to come...)

I've been told many a time that I'm far too argumentative for my own good, and I should learn to shut up and leave other people to their own opinions. It might kill me, but that's what I will do.

If I post on this thread again, flame me.

Foxtons

i know its not just the bankers fault, but when everything settles the bankers are going to be able to get new jobs, new bonuses and will be able to go back to what they did before, however those people who got into too much debt and took out mortgages they couldnt keep up with are going to loose their houses, their possessions and are going to find it a whole lot harder to get back up again.

Crap. I can't resist it. Must reply.

No, these guys won't be able to get good jobs. What jobs are there available? Banks everywhere have been making job cuts by the thousand. Lehman had over 25,000 employees. All of these people have flooded the labor market. If the jobs were available, they wouldn't have been cut in the first place!

That didn't last long.

Why isn't anybody bashing the idiots who decided it'd be a good idea to buy a house they can't afford?

What about the sector, hyped on fees pushing the mortgages?
Or what about the proportion of 2nd/3rd/4th/5th property owners taking the housing stock, pushing up the prices that help make these mortgages unaffordable?

my parents raised £2k+ for kent air ambulance and another 2k for a defib unit for the local doctors surgery. they are pensioners living on a council estate. it took a lot of time and effort on their part to do so. the amounts you mentioned in your above posts to make financial institutions sound alturistic just make them look stingy.
your fundraising efforts are commendable those of the comany are a drop in the ocean.

The company had over 10,000 employees in London alone, not counting the other 65,000 in NY, Frankfurt, HK, Tokyo, Singapore, Zurich, or Moscow. And they were committed to matching up to £3000 of each of the London employees, I don't know what the amount is for the other parts of the world, but I believe it's comparable. That's a bit of a commitment, isn't it?

Ok... I assume that free markets and efficient economies are good things.

What economic system would you propose to achieve those things, aside from capitalism?

how exactly are our economies efficient? everyday we here how wasteful our society is, how much energy, food and other resources we are wasting and yet you call this efficient? i know its obvious, but we have been using the same type of lightbulb for over 100 years even though we have had better and more efficient lightbulbs for over 30 years or so, and are now only really using them because we have been forced into a situation where we cant afford not to, which was created by those same people who told us everything would be ok.

also i think it will be alot easier for the bankers, who will generally have degrees, a levels, loads of friends/family in nice places as well as the old school tie to support them through this tough time. we will just have to wait and see though.

Ok... I assume that free markets and efficient economies are good things.

What economic system would you propose to achieve those things, aside from capitalism?
How about a less rapacious, more inclusive capitalism that took a holistic, longer term view? Something akin to German capitalism of the late 20th century?

The current 'credit crunch' (what a wank term) is due to the unfettered greed of the management of companies like Bear Stearns and Lehmann Brothers who tried to screw every last penny out of their investments in a short as period as possible. This included lending money to people whom they knew would struggle to repay due to their low income levels and track record of non-payment, hence the term 'sub-prime'.