Rothchilds continues to be named as being at the heart of the issues.


Meanwhile the discussion continues, not least on BBC which is running a 3 part series on channel 2 about the history of the past few years - the first past, tonight, covered the LIBOR scandal which was known to governments and financial regulators back in 2008 even though it blew up in the public perception only last year.
Those with access to the BBC programming can see more about this at BBC Two - Bankers and there is more discussion about the issues at:-

DEBATE: Can we trust bankers to help the national recovery? - OpenLearn - Open University

3 banks identified at the heart of the LIBOR fiddling have been Barclays, RBS and UBS. The latter of these 3 is yet to be dealt with by the regulatory authorities.
It is somewhat encouraging that criminal investigations are under way in both the US and the UK.

__________________
Dave

Yep, watch that programme, whether or not you like the BBC - (there's a bit of BBC sensationalism in it). I've only watched yesterday's, about JP Morgan and MF Global. But will definitely watch the rest. Thanks for the tip, Dave.

Only a year and a month ago, big bank CEOs were still lying about the state of their trading.
From the US Securities and Exchange, Mar 2013: JP Morgan had “a trading operation that piled on risk, ignored limits on risk taking, hid losses, dodged oversight and misinformed the public”.
'Misinformed' is US-speak for 'lied'.

According to the same programme, the EuroZone countries owe $11,000,000,000,000.
To whom, exactly?
Why does no investigative TV programme or journalist start asking? Or looking?

Ponder why the Met Police have just asked to be allowed to use water cannon. After concluding about 5 years or so ago that it was of no use.
Is it 'just' a frightener? Or is there something down the pipe? It's one, or the other.....

Imagine for a moment if the western world's engineering professions operated with the same behaviours as the world's financial professions.
Anyone want to hang around within reach of the London Shard? Or take a high-speed train through the Chunnel?

From the Chief Executive of the UK Financial Conduct Authority, during the programme: "There's no question whatsoever, we won't spot everything and there will be failures and there will be scandals in the future hopefully(!!) somewhat less than in the past......." (My emphasis).
Any likelyhood such a thing would ever need to be said about the construction of the HS2 rail line and rolling stock when it gets underway?
Or the next 'super passenger air-liner'?

Capitalism relies entirely on the integrity of captains of the financial industries, in the same way as civil construction relies of the integrity of engineers.
It seems to me that captains of financial industry have very little or no respect for capitalism, (consumed by greed?), and capitalism is doomed until that changes. If ever.

__________________
TTR250 - London to Cape Town

It used to be said that only Doctors and civil engineers bury their mistakes, and the engineers can bury them deeper.

So, tonight the 3rd and final episode will provide a review of mis-selling by the banks over the last 30 years, or thereabouts.
Yep, I'm up for this, having also been involved, as a consumer, in the endowment mortgage thing years ago.

In the meantime, this guy takes his pension and runs, putting in a good word for his co-workers as he departs.
Call to stop demonising bankers - MSN Money UK
How many times in how many occupations have we heard "that it is all the fault of the system".

Incidentally, during the interview contained in the link above, the outgoing bank of England boss did point out what some economists have said; the current UK govn scheme to encourage a boost in housing mortgages has the potential to bring on yet another bubble in housing defaults which, in this case, will be funded by the usual source - the taxpayers. All this in preparation for an election that is only 2 years away.

__________________
Dave

The banks don't care about us, the bigger picture or the country, rather in the manner of Sebastian vettel, they'll apologise in public to try and save face, but the only thing they are interested in is satisfying their own ambition, which generally means screwing as much money as possible out of the rest of us.

Well, having received another lesson in the failure of people to read each other's post I come back to look at this tired bit of ranting and find the Masonic emblem and wisps of "the Rothschilds".

Gentlemen (!) you can't have it both ways. Either "THEY" are all powerful or . . . they are not.

Oh, never mind.

"A silly obsession is the hobgoblin of a small mind."

__________________
Orange, it's the new black.

I see nothing tired, or ranting, about this thread.

On the contrary, those who ignore the (very recent) history of banking are destined to repeat the mistakes, which in many cases are compounded by greed, dishonesty, lack of integrity and plain old fashioned criminal behaviour.
In the case of the latter, it appears that the US regulatory authorities are ahead of the UK but it is to be hoped that the UK will catch up in the future, via the Serious Fraud Office for one instance.

A heavy emphasis in the documentary that I mentioned above was on Barclays bank, founded by Quakers.
Mr Bob Diamond, erstwhile mover and shaker of that bank and a past darling of the city of London, did not know the founding principles of Barclays which are in my title to this particular post.
That particular incident, when this was revealed, occurred nearly a year ago:-
Barclays is branded a ‘rotten, thieving bank’ by MP John Mann - Telegraph
but the scandal of the issues concerning LIBOR continue to this day.

How Barclays betrayed its own heritage | Make Wealth History

One of the commentators within the documentary summarised that it all went wrong when the banks turned to making money out of their clients rather than making money for their clients.
As I said in an earlier post in here, it is quite some time since anyone has ventured within this thread to defend the banks/banking practices of the past years.
However, I am the first to agree that we need banks - they are far too essential a human activity to be left to ......................... well, you tell me, what the solutions are!

__________________
Dave

"However, I am the first to agree that we need banks - they are far too essential a human activity to be left to ........................."

............. It just struck me that there was a report a while ago that drew attention to some common traits among senior staff of the banks; these all pointed toward psychopathic tendencies; the report indicated that such people are not "those who are the best suited" to manage large organisations, much less other people; just a thought, based on the next in the "bankers" series (number 2 of 3 at 9pm tonight). The advance blurb says -
This will address the subject of "risk" - a topic that has been discussed in here, previously, and in other threads within the HUBB. Apparently, it will look at how the bankers were deluded into thinking that they fully understood risk, could manage it "for ever" and the attendant attitude of "boom, no more bust". But, most interestingly, most of the case studies will be drawn from examples of failure to deal with risk since the crash of the last decade. We might think that the bankers' earlier culture has not changed a great deal, but it is probably best to reserve judgement for a while?

__________________
Dave

First they took money from other banks,
and I didn't speak out because I didn't own a bank.

Then they took money from governments,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a government.

Then they took from customers of banks,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a customer.

Then they took from borrowers,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a borrower.

Then they took money from the people,
and I didn't speak out because I had no money.

Then they stole from me.

__________________
TTR250 - London to Cape Town

And the very sad fact is that this continues to this day, never mind what happened in 2007/08; the docu of last night produced plenty of evidence for this, with the main player in the spotlight being this guy:- Jenkins: Jon Corzine and Failure as Usual - WSJ.com
He indulged himself as the boss of an investment company, using the company money to invest (something which up until then the company had never done previously); when it all started to go wrong (with the analysis of "risk" being used to play what amounted to a game of backgammon = double or quits) he then dipped into using the accounts of customers to hedge the bet; the company collapsed. Along the way, this boss got rid of any staff who did not see things the way he wanted.

One pithy comment in the docu was: "it was a fools paradise, and there were plenty of fools available", or words to that effect. I believe this comment related to those investors who trusted such organisations to invest their money wisely; the general public basically.

__________________
Dave