SBR wrote:
We don't have a 'casino economy'. Hope that helps.
Not sure how that's in anyway relevant to rigging LIBOR. I guess when your so far off the mark to use the term 'casino' in the context of the economy or banking you've already lost any grasp of relevance.
It's 'you're'. That's called basic literacy.
As to basic economic literacy, I doubt if I could hope to educate you.
We have bankers and financiers gambling with money that is not theirs. Did you spot the 'gambling' bit? This is the sort of thing that caused the financial crisis. Remember that? Happened in 2008. People buying debts and feck knows what else. Not with their own money.
Much so-called investment is nothing other than a gamble – it is a bet that you will end up with more than you put in, but the latter is possible, to a greater a lessor degree, depending on the situation.
So, for instance, that's why (to give but one specific example) paid into two ISAs (these are supposedly 'savings' schemes). The first was a straightforward one. It now has about £5K of my money in it. Do you know how much interest that earned in the last year? £10. The bank in question got to play with my money for 12 months and they gave me a tenner for that.
Second one had a percentage of investment risk built in. I thought that might not be a bad idea with a little money – at the least risky of the riskier options, so to speak.
After around six years, it's just getting back to what I put in in the first place.
So not remotely a gamble. No, no, no – not a sort of a bet. And these things were sold as good ideas for savings – they're an Individual Savings Account, don't forget. They were portrayed as a sensible and safe way to save. Saving's good and responsible, yes? A tenner on effing 5k.
We've been conned.
And it seems that you've been conned more than most.
Or do you actually really believe that everything's hunky dory and people are just having a whinge instead of, for instance, going out and getting a job, because there are loads of jobs out there really if only people would be prepared to work for nothing. Or, erm, they could make loads more money easily because pay is rising in real terms, the cost of living is going down and it's a piece of the proverbial to get yourself a better job with more pay (and if you need to train and learn more, you'll easily get a loan to do that).
We know that you refuse to accept that there has been a widening income gap between those at the very top and everybody else (although presumably you were walkabout the last time that I responded to your denials of that with a shed load of info). Or was that the time you had a minor hissy fit and flounced away from the discussion rather than respond to the data?
Are you Bob Diamond's bag carrier?
Are you Bob Diamond?
