Remove Advertisements

Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Wed Mar 20, 2013 11:17 am

First, about precedents...Everything, without any exception ever, that government does sets a precedent. That doesn't mean that precedent can't be overturned by either a superseding government body's ruling, or by the same body making new laws to specifically overturn it.  Until such time however, it seems that this body considers within its power the ability "tax" anyone in the EU with money in a bank if they feel it is warranted.
 
The odd thing here, since as you say, Cyprus is insignificant, then why bother with such a line crossing tactic?  If that's the answer when the situation is insignificant, I'd hate to see the solution when the situation is more dire.
 
As far as the alleged corruption and interest rates etc...Is that really relevant?  I mean shouldn't that be handled through the legislative regulatory process?  The given solution doesn't even seem to address that anyhow, but rather use it as justification, for which it hopelessly fails.  I mean if I put my money in a bank that is FDIC insured here, and that bank goes tits up because of malfeasance, why shouldn't the FDIC make me whole again?  Isn't it the FDIC's job to make sure banks whom they insure are meeting the standards for which they are willing to credit depositors should the bank not be able too?  For the FDIC to say, well that bank system was corrupt, when they have chosen to insure it, just means that they were derelict in their duties.
 
The same applies here, if the governing bodies didn't like the way Cyprus was running their banking systems there were legislative and regulatory solutions available, which is much preferable to these sort of closed door non representative sorts of punishments, which doesn't even address the culprits.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9666
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Wed Mar 20, 2013 12:31 pm

Why is it that banks that should fail get bailed out by governments and continue to operate? If the government has to bail out a bank, it should take possession of the bank, pay out any deposits, sell off the bank's assets, and close down the bank.

Maybe if the penalty for mismanaging a bank was the loss of the business instead of a big fat bailout cheque, stockholders might value sound management and a slimmer bottom line.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1980
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Wed Mar 20, 2013 12:37 pm

The government answer to that has been "too big too fail". And they did let many banks fail. Washington mutual was one of the more infamous. I tend to agree though, bailing out all of these companies that were doing stupid things may not have been the wisest choice in the long run, but it's an amazing amount of political cover that is hard to resist for politicians.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9666
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Paxen » Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:08 pm

I favor nationalizing banks that are "too big to fail" and yet fail. The investors would have lost their money anyway, and investing in anything is never a sure thing. Then the government can sell it off again when/if the bank gets back in shape, recouping the taxpayers' money that was spent on it and perhaps even turning a profit.
Paxen
 
Posts: 609
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:49 pm

Define investor.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9666
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Paxen » Wed Mar 20, 2013 11:27 pm

Fridmarr wrote:Define investor.


All right, bad word. Shareholders? As in, the owners of the bank?
Paxen
 
Posts: 609
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Thu Mar 21, 2013 4:52 am

Koatanga wrote:Why is it that banks that should fail get bailed out by governments and continue to operate? If the government has to bail out a bank, it should take possession of the bank, pay out any deposits, sell off the bank's assets, and close down the bank.

Maybe if the penalty for mismanaging a bank was the loss of the business instead of a big fat bailout cheque, stockholders might value sound management and a slimmer bottom line.


Thats exactly how it works in Denmark. Well we did have some "bailout" packages, but that was for the entire bank sector. We have the governtment "company" called "Financial Stability" which takes over a bank that fails (unless another bank takes it over and merges it into its own). The depositors are the guaranteed deposits up to 100k €, and anyone in debt to the bank simply owe their money to the government. Financial Stability then sells off any healthy parts of the business.
The investors / stockholders / creditors of the bank that aren't depositors are left with nothing to show.

It works, quite well, witha great depositor security.
One group of depositors are exempt from the 100k € limit on deposits (last I heard) - municipalities and region bodies (ie the lower levels of government) - they have full security (imaginge if a municipality unning schools etc or the region running the hospitals suddenly didn't have their money because of a bank failing - right no healthcare, no paycheques, no nothing till a new tax is levied).
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Mar 21, 2013 6:58 am

That's how it works here too for 99.9% of banks, the exception being the "too big too fail" banks. Usually, it's because they are large conglomerates with reach far beyond just banking, and shutting them down would have significant negative repercussions, at least according to some government officials. Others think that banks should not be allowed to reach that state, they should be broken up if they reach that size.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9666
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Paxen » Thu Mar 21, 2013 7:27 am

If that had been how it worked, the US government would now have been heavily invested in the banking sector.
Paxen
 
Posts: 609
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Mar 21, 2013 8:52 am

What do you mean? There's been some 400 or so banks that have failed since the crisis.


http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/fai ... klist.html
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9666
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Paxen » Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:45 am

And are they now operating as government-owned banks?
Paxen
 
Posts: 609
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Mar 21, 2013 10:11 am

No they were sold/merged into another bank, just as Nooska mentioned.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9666
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Paxen » Thu Mar 21, 2013 10:20 am

Hmm, I may have misunderstood him. In Norway, around 1990 during that crisis, the government took over a lot of banks that were on the brink of failure. After they got back on their feet, they were sold off, sometimes even with profit.

Just figured that would be how the danes did it as well.
Paxen
 
Posts: 609
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Thu Mar 21, 2013 5:39 pm

The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11076
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Fri Mar 22, 2013 1:40 am

I don't rightly remember what came before Financial Stability (which was founded in 2008) but I remember something similar to that previously.

In all fairness there is some criticism of the company for having too large expenditures and too little oversight, but from my chair those are political problems only.
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest


Remove Advertisements

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest
?php } else { ?