HBoS takeover ( merged threads )

[Maximus]

Only one letter sepearates HBOS from being hobos, sorta similar to only one inch sepearating a ***** from an *******.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Again, no. Not by your initial question.

 

 

 

You are talking of need, not greed.

 

Greed would be killing someone even although you didn't have to feed your family, but your initial example says that you DID have to feed your family.

 

OK, it was a bad example.

 

A better example is private education. If I'm in a position to provide my children with an improved education relative to his peers, be that private tuition or private schooling, do I pay it? Of course I do. I want my child to have as many advantages as possible over his peer group.

[cosanostra]

OK, it was a bad example.

 

A better example is private education. If I'm in a position to provide my children with an improved education relative to his peers, be that private tuition or private schooling, do I pay it? Of course I do. I want my child to have as many advantages as possible over his peer group.

 

Geoff, what does that have to do with greed?

 

Sorry but i don't get your point at all.

[david mcgee]

OK, it was a bad example.

 

A better example is private education. If I'm in a position to provide my children with an improved education relative to his peers, be that private tuition or private schooling, do I pay it? Of course I do. I want my child to have as many advantages as possible over his peer group.

 

Thats your worst example yet.

 

If Capitalism was the eutopia you describe, state schools would be just as good as private schools.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Geoff, what does that have to do with greed?

 

Sorry but i don't get your point at all.

 

Because it's self-interest in the communist's mind.

 

I am using my advantage (more money) to obtain an advantage for my child (better education, leading to better qualifications and more money).

 

Better that I would be forbidden from utilising the option in the interests of "fairness".

[Boris]

OK, it was a bad example.

 

A better example is private education. If I'm in a position to provide my children with an improved education relative to his peers, be that private tuition or private schooling, do I pay it? Of course I do. I want my child to have as many advantages as possible over his peer group.

 

Only because you think this will make your child safer in the vulgar, cut-throat capitalist world.

 

As Cosanostra points out, this example is not greed either.

 

To go off at a tangent slightly, last night I was watching a programme on UKTV History called "Their Finest Hour". The programme was about people in the UK during the Second World War and how everyone was mobilised and doing something for the war effort. I couldn't help but feel grateful, humbled and to an extent saddened that the selflessness and unity that these people appeared to have has now all but disappeared. The only profit that they wanted from their endeavour was the survival of the Nation. It was, if you like, an example of socialism at work.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Thats your worst example yet.

 

If Capitalism was the eutopia you describe, state schools would be just as good as private schools.

 

Ah, but I never said capitalism was "utopia". I said it was better than the alternatives.

[Coco]

Only because you think this will make your child safer in the vulgar, cut-throat capitalist world.

 

As Cosanostra points out, this example is not greed either.

 

To go off at a tangent slightly, last night I was watching a programme on UKTV History called "Their Finest Hour". The programme was about people in the UK during the Second World War and how everyone was mobilised and doing something for the war effort. I couldn't help but feel grateful, humbled and to an extent saddened that the selflessness and unity that these people appeared to have has now all but disappeared. The only profit that they wanted from their endeavour was the survival of the Nation. It was, if you like, an example of socialism at work.

 

What happened right after the War?

 

The welfare state which has helped to drain personal responsibility away.

 

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Welfare-State-Were-Failure/dp/1842750631

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Only because you think this will make your child safer in the vulgar, cut-throat capitalist world.

 

As Cosanostra points out, this example is not greed either.

 

To go off at a tangent slightly, last night I was watching a programme on UKTV History called "Their Finest Hour". The programme was about people in the UK during the Second World War and how everyone was mobilised and doing something for the war effort. I couldn't help but feel grateful, humbled and to an extent saddened that the selflessness and unity that these people appeared to have has now all but disappeared. The only profit that they wanted from their endeavour was the survival of the Nation. It was, if you like, an example of socialism at work.

 

You really think that if Britain was under threat, like in WWII, that the country wouldn't rally round in defence? Of course it would, to defend their families and properties as the primary reason as well as their country. I would be on the first plane back myself.

 

If I've given bad examples of "greed", this is a shocking example of socialism.

[Maximus]

Ah, but I never said capitalism was "utopia". I said it was better than the alternatives.

How can it be better if it encourages divides? It's only better if you are one of 'the few', remember this is a system that sees, in effect, 99% of wealth in the hands of 1% of the population.

 

That is the problem with the world. Capitalism is a an evil system, the only people who champion it are those who profit from it. The class system is built upon it, the greedy and privileged get the greatest rewards.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

How can it be better if it encourages divides? It's only better if you are one of 'the few', remember this is a system that sees, in effect, 99% of wealth in the hands of 1% of the population.

 

That is the problem with the world. Capitalism is a an evil system, the only people who champion it are those who profit from it. The class system is built upon it, the greedy and privileged get the greatest rewards.

 

Because it provides better living standards for the greater number.

 

If socialism or communism worked, why are there so few countries in the world who practise it? Same goes for fascism.

[Boaby Ewing]

It's probably a good think Coppercrutch doesn't work out at Canary Wharf. Bang outside the tube this morning there was a property investment company trying to lure in the punters with a white Lamborghini. Classy. All of 100 metres from Lehman's front door.

 

Think old CC's head might have exploded.

[Boris]

What happened right after the War?

 

The welfare state which has helped to drain personal responsibility away.

 

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Welfare-State-Were-Failure/dp/1842750631

 

 

Yeah, that land fit for heroes...

 

That's what the people wanted though, hence why they voted for it.

 

There are some things in life that market forces simply can't be allowed to control.

[Maximus]

Because it provides better living standards for the greater number.

 

If socialism or communism worked, why are there so few countries in the world who practise it? Same goes for fascism.

Why do you think?

 

???$$$$

 

Since the dawn of civilization that has been the driving factor. Not equality and collective prosperity and knowledge. The few (and I mean few) have always had control of the many, and what form does that control take? Hmmmmm.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

Yeah, that land fit for heroes...

 

That's what the people wanted though, hence why they voted for it.

 

There are some things in life that market forces simply can't be allowed to control.

 

Yep, it was classic socialism. A lovely idea in theory that doesn't work in practice.

 

Take the NHS. A behemoth that is meant to be the "envy of the world". Yet the social insurance schemes in Europe produce far better results.

[david mcgee]

Because it provides better living standards for the greater number.

 

If socialism or communism worked, why are there so few countries in the world who practise it? Same goes for fascism.

 

Because anyone that tried the alternatives either got bombed by the US and UK or had to suffer trade sanctions.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Why do you think?

 

???$$$$

 

Since the dawn of civilization that has been the driving factor. Not equlity and collective prosperity and knowledge. The few (and I mean few) have always had control of the many, and what form does that control take? Hmmmmm.

 

I think you just proved my point about natural instincts.

 

Look at history's revolutions. What happens? A taste of power or money and all that idealism is out of the window.

 

Capitalism's advantage is that it accepts it will happen. If managed properly, therefore, capitalism will produce better living standards for the greater number.

 

There will be lessons learned from all of this, there will be a recession, the system will be cleaned and then the economy will start growing again. That's how it is.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Because anyone that tried the alternatives either got bombed by the US and UK or had to suffer trade sanctions.

 

Actually, aside from the initial stages of the Bolshevik revolution and that champion of free market economics, Hitler , I can't recall the Russians being bombed.

 

In fact, the Russians coerced their neighbours into the communist fold.

[Boris]

Yep, it was classic socialism. A lovely idea in theory that doesn't work in practice.

 

Take the NHS. A behemoth that is meant to be the "envy of the world". Yet the social insurance schemes in Europe produce far better results.

 

If successive govt's were to tax the wealthiest that would perhaps help pay for it?

 

Why doesn't it work in practice? Because the forces of Capitalism work against it.

[Coco]

 

Yeah, that land fit for heroes...

 

That's what the people wanted though, hence why they voted for it.

 

There are some things in life that market forces simply can't be allowed to control.

 

The book is written from a certain viewpoint , but emphasises what a monster the welfare state has become.

 

Why have we become beholden to the idea that bureaucrats can make better collective decisions than individuals acting in their own self interest?

 

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own neccessities but of their advantages." Who else but Adam Smith.

[Boris]

 

Capitalism's advantage is that it accepts it will happen. If managed properly, therefore, capitalism will produce better living standards for the greater number.

 

There will be lessons learned from all of this, there will be a recession, the system will be cleaned and then the economy will start growing again. That's how it is.

 

How can capitalism be managed? Surely the "invisible free hand of the market" decides? Surely you're not advocating, *gulp*, state intervention?

 

Second bit - boom, bust, boom, bust all at the behest of the financiers and controllers of capital.

 

What way is that to run anything? All the while it is the ordinary person who gets dumped on.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

If successive govt's were to tax the wealthiest that would perhaps help pay for it?

 

Why doesn't it work in practice? Because the forces of Capitalism work against it.

 

Nothing against taxing the wealthy.

 

But isn't it rather ironic that the tax take from the top percentiles of society increased when Lawson cut the top rate from 60% to 40%? Why? Because people do not want to work for government, simply because government is a dead hand.

 

Government needs to exist to provide goods and services that the market cannot provide and to ensure law and order is properly enforced (including financial law). If government concentrated on that and that alone, perhaps economic activity might just benefit?

[Maximus]

The point is it is the capitalists (money hoarders) who control the power now and in the past, if they were not there other systems might actually have a chance. How can these systems succeed when the people who hold all the power and wealth have a vested interest in them failing? Every time there has been a chance of FAIRNESS those fighting for it have been 'taken out'.

 

America could have been a true beacon of a fair and equal society. However those ideals championed at the time of the signing of the US constitution were simply erased by the money men, the bankers. That is why the original American Dream died to be replaced with the nightmare that is in it's place now.

[Jambo83]

I'm working in an HBOS office just now and it's been manic all day. I was off yesterday but apparently ?41m was withdrawn from our Current accounts & Savings accounts in one banking day.

 

I don't have any shares / investments other than the free one's I get as part of my salary package and my pension, which I only started 18 months ago.

 

It's a bizarre atmosphere though, never experienced it in my 7 years working here. Most people are checking the internet for news updates. The most worrying aspect is that there could be up to a 40,000 overlap in staff if the 2 groups merge.

 

Just got to sit tight and see what happens...

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

How can capitalism be managed? Surely the "invisible free hand of the market" decides? Surely you're not advocating, *gulp*, state intervention?

 

Second bit - boom, bust, boom, bust all at the behest of the financiers and controllers of capital.

 

What way is that to run anything? All the while it is the ordinary person who gets dumped on.

 

Capitalism can be managed by setting the rules of the game and ensuring they are enforced. That's the main reason why this whole issue has occurred - the rules were too lax and those that existed weren't enforced.

[Boris]

Actually, aside from the initial stages of the Bolshevik revolution and that champion of free market economics, Hitler , I can't recall the Russians being bombed.

 

In fact, the Russians coerced their neighbours into the communist fold.

 

Did the Soviets co-erce their neighbours? I guess it depends on your point of view...

 

But for examples of Western intervention against states doing their own thing I give you Vietnam, Cuba, Iraq (not now, then), Iran, Grenada, Nicaragua.

[Boris]

Nothing against taxing the wealthy.

 

But isn't it rather ironic that the tax take from the top percentiles of society increased when Lawson cut the top rate from 60% to 40%? Why? Because people do not want to work for government, simply because government is a dead hand.

 

Government needs to exist to provide goods and services that the market cannot provide and to ensure law and order is properly enforced (including financial law). If government concentrated on that and that alone, perhaps economic activity might just benefit?

 

Under proper communism there would be no need for govt as the state would wither as we, as humans, would be elevated to a much higher plain of being where we worked for each other and not for filthy lucre.

[Boris]

Capitalism can be managed by setting the rules of the game and ensuring they are enforced. That's the main reason why this whole issue has occurred - the rules were too lax and those that existed weren't enforced.

 

So state-capitalism then?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

The point is it is the capitalists (money hoarders) who control the power now and in the past, if they were not there other systems might actually have a chance. How can these systems succeed when the people who hold all the power and wealth have a vested interest in them failing? Every time there has been a chance of FAIRNESS those fighting for it have been 'taken out'.

 

America could have been a true beacon of a fair and equal society. However those ideals championed at the time of the constitution were simply erased by the money men, the bankers. That is why the American Dream died.

 

And when did America ever advance a socialist or communist stance since 1776?

 

Anyway, I'm off to bed. Night comrades!

[Coco]

Did the Soviets co-erce their neighbours? I guess it depends on your point of view...

 

But for examples of Western intervention against states doing their own thing I give you Vietnam, Cuba, Iraq (not now, then), Iran, Grenada, Nicaragua.

 

Yes all these are shocking - and you can add current Iraq and Afghanistan - all the more reason for an independent, libertarian, small Government, law abiding Scotland. No more imperialism. Less Government.

[Boris]

And when did America ever advance a socialist or communist stance since 1776?

 

Anyway, I'm off to bed. Night comrades!

 

Sleep tight Geoff.

 

Remember and check for "reds" under your bed...

 

Cheers

 

Boris

[Coco]

Under proper communism there would be no need for govt as the state would wither as we, as humans, would be elevated to a much higher plain of being where we worked for each other and not for filthy lucre.

 

What do you think the means of exchange or store of value would be?

[coppercrutch]

It's probably a good think Coppercrutch doesn't work out at Canary Wharf. Bang outside the tube this morning there was a property investment company trying to lure in the punters with a white Lamborghini. Classy. All of 100 metres from Lehman's front door.

 

Think old CC's head might have exploded.

 

Seriously ?!!

 

After all this they are still selling property as an 'investment'...

 

These boys must have some thick skin !!

[Boris]

What do you think the means of exchange or store of value would be?

 

Means of exchange? Everyone would have equal liability to work so your labour is the exchange. Everyone does their bit as they are able.

 

Store of value? I guess it would be the usefulness of the commodity. I would imagine only useful things would be made.

 

Sounds awfully naive I admit, but why not?

[Coco]

Means of exchange? Everyone would have equal liability to work so your labour is the exchange. Everyone does their bit as they are able.

 

Store of value? I guess it would be the usefulness of the commodity. I would imagine only useful things would be made.

 

Sounds awfully naive I admit, but why not?

 

I think that throwing out any ideas of division of labour and comparative advantage would be utterly barbarous.

 

Unless you think that a tiny human population living in caves and scavenging is a good idea.

 

If there is no Capital and no reason to put off consumption today in order to achieve higher returns through investment for future consumption then that is what you would get.

 

Actually, on second thought, you could perhaps get a pre-medieaval type of society, though would have to be significantly lower population size. Across history, the key factor for allowing population growth has been through specialisation of farming - and that was possible only because of money providing a means of exchange for buyers of farming products.

[Boris]

I think that throwing out any ideas of division of labour and comparative advantage would be utterly barbarous.

 

Unless you think that a tiny human population living in caves and scavenging is a good idea.

 

If there is no Capital and no reason to put off consumption today in order to achieve higher returns through investment for future consumption then that is what you would get.

 

No, that's not what I'm saying.

 

Instead of people working for the huge profits of a few individuals, then their work would be for the people as a whole.

 

Consumption also needs to be looked at given the finite resources the planet has.

 

Green economics may well yield us to a more socialist way of life.

[Coco]

No, that's not what I'm saying.

 

Instead of people working for the huge profits of a few individuals, then their work would be for the people as a whole.

 

Consumption also needs to be looked at given the finite resources the planet has.

 

Green economics may well yield us to a more socialist way of life.

 

The trouble is that the 3 great questions have to be answered.

1) What is to be produced

2) How will it be produced

3) Who gets what is produced

 

Self interest - as described by Adam Smith in my quote above - can respond to the signals prices give. If you do not have a means of exchange then those signals are utterly lost - as per the Soviet Union. Nobody knows what anything is 'worth' - just as in the current situation where markets are trading on what Governments might do - the signals are being hidden.

 

Look at China. People living on the margin of poverty/death for thousands of years under bureaucratic rule of one form or another. 20 years of trade have taken more people out of poverty than I suspect has ever happened in the history of the world - even with incomplete capitalist systems.

[Nelly Terraces]

I think that throwing out any ideas of division of labour and comparative advantage would be utterly barbarous.

 

Unless you think that a tiny human population living in caves and scavenging is a good idea.

 

If there is no Capital and no reason to put off consumption today in order to achieve higher returns through investment for future consumption then that is what you would get.

 

Actually, on second thought, you could perhaps get a pre-medieaval type of society, though would have to be significantly lower population size. Across history, the key factor for allowing population growth has been through specialisation of farming - and that was possible only because of money providing a means of exchange for buyers of farming products.

 

I knew we'd get a mention of the hobos on this deep philosophical debate eventually!

[tedp6873]

Not seen it posted else where.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7621151.stm

 

is this the end of HBOS????

[speedbump]

Yes indeed it is.

 

It's gonna be known as the Llyods and Halifax bank of Jockland doesn't have a banking system anymore;)

[Gerd Muller]

http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/showthread.php?t=28808

 

There is already a thread on it.

[eddie fenwick]

Not seen it posted else where.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7621151.stm

 

is this the end of HBOS????

 

just had it confirmed by a mate who does loads of work for them,will happen tomorrow

[The Godfather]

Looks like bricks & mortar safest place to have your money.

 

[coppercrutch]

Looks like bricks & mortar safest place to have your money.

 

 

Could be if you own outright. At least you can live in it. However if you have a large mortgage then probably no.

 

In all honesty if things continue to break down at this pace then a weapon, lots of rounds and the knowledge of how to use it could be the most valuable asset.

 

That is taking things to extremes of course.

 

I hope it doesn't get that bad and I am pretty sure it won't. However this moment in history is the closest it has been for a long long time.

 

Scary **** !!

[easty1985]

just had it confirmed by a mate who does loads of work for them,will happen tomorrow

 

tomorrow? seriously??

 

i work there- been pretty hectic today. I work in inbound sales centre - had one call today. that was a customer who wanted to take out ?800k out an account i opened for him last week!

[Guess The Crowd]

To be a parochial Hearts supporter for a minute, is there not a slight irony here, given that, unlike us, most of the rest of the SPL bank / borrow from HBOS?

 

We're constantly reminded how financially reckless as a club we've been (not without some justification admittedly). However, won't it now be slightly amusing if we - thanks to being with Vlad's bank - can sit and watch while the other clubs have a tricky time with their new bankers?

[Charlie-Brown]

Could be if you own outright. At least you can live in it. However if you have a large mortgage then probably no.

 

In all honesty if things continue to break down at this pace then a weapon, lots of rounds and the knowledge of how to use it could be the most valuable asset.

 

That is taking things to extremes of course.

 

I hope it doesn't get that bad and I am pretty sure it won't. However this moment in history is the closest it has been for a long long time.

 

Scary **** !!

 

Real things with intrinsic value and utility will be no less valuable tomorrow or the day after - your house might be worth ?200K or ?20K depending upon the volatility of the market but it still has 4 walls & a roof over your head, a field will still grow a crop, a car or bike is still the same mode of transport, a machine tool can still produce things etc. people will always need food & shelter - the real economy will always exist .... even in the dark ages goods & services still had prices - people still bought, sold or bartered - ultimately even a garden-spade has more real value than shares in HBOS etc.

[Say What Again]

Not seen it posted else where.

 

You must have been busy today mate, it's been the talk of The Shed since 8:45am this morning!

[david mcgee]

Its being rumored that Lloyds TSB may pay ?2.80 per share for HBOS.

 

This is quite frankly unbelievable!

 

Why the massive premium on where there shares are now?

 

I can only assume that the Government are giving guarantees, if they are not get rid of Lloyds TSB shares pronto.

[Maximus]

Did I hear right, they are getting a relaxation of the monopoly laws to allow this to go through?

 

Agghhh cushti

 

 

If this happens it just proves the extent to which they run the show.