When you and your gambling chums have finally paid back what it cost, not just UK taxpayers but all taxpayers in the western world, to cover your reckless bets, feel free to come back and have a moan. Until that payday you'll find very little sympathy anywhere, apart from in your cosy little microcosm

Which reckless bets were those then?

Pass the parcel with derivatives for starters

Who on here owns shares in RBS?

RBSs principal problem was a very poor acquisition.

Across the sctor as a whole, the problem has been with poor traditional lending / credit control, not investment banking.

It's just that if you've got money spare. Rather than going down the bookies, RBS sounds like a good investment.

As long as it's a long term one.

Diavolo Rosso wrote:But hey, as long as a bunch of northern socialists have satisfied themselves that one person isn't getting his bonus, who needs £45bn? I think you have misunderstood the debate over Hester's bonus. No offence to anyone here but nobody in the City cares what northern socialists think, if they had their way we would all be working in the coal mines singing the red flag instead of having the most vibrant financial services sector in the world. Hester has turned down his bonus under pressure and censure from educated people that understand politics and economics not leftists Have a read of this from a sensible educated newspaper not some leftist liberal rag: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ia ... -executive’s-bonus-decision-should-be-followed-by-most-ftse-100-directors/

Diavolo Rosso wrote:But hey, as long as a bunch of northern socialists have satisfied themselves that one person isn't getting his bonus, who needs £45bn? I think you have misunderstood the debate over Hester's bonus. No offence to anyone here but nobody in the City cares what northern socialists think, if they had their way we would all be working in the coal mines singing the red flag instead of having the most vibrant financial services sector in the world. Hester has turned down his bonus under pressure and censure from educated people that understand politics and economics not leftists Have a read of this from a sensible educated newspaper not some leftist liberal rag: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ia ... -executive’s-bonus-decision-should-be-followed-by-most-ftse-100-directors/

All British banks are good long term investments at the moment. The bankers, despite the last few years are too clever to let politicians mess things up for too long. I'd say pile in and sit back.

Ovavoo wrote:All British banks are good long term investments at the moment. The bankers, despite the last few years are too clever to let politicians mess things up for too long. I'd say pile in and sit back. The top 4 aussie banks pay around 6.4 - 7.4% p.a. in divs. Which is much more than you'll get from them in any of their savings accounts. The financial sector on the ASX pays an average of 7.4% at the mo. If your savings are doing nothing back home, have a butchers around. There's nothing I'm aware of that's stopping you from buying international shares on t'internet. The only downer is the exposure to exchange rates from blighty. ANZ for example: http://www.shareholder.anz.com/phoenix. ... -dividends ----- I think that if a company can pay large bonuses to its directors, and non-executive directors as well as some staff, they should channel that money back into the people that OWN the bank, ie. the shareholders. Even if it's a token gesture. The money's there, but it's going to the people the shareholders employ in effect and not the owners themselves. Even the Bank of America gave a measly 1¢ per shares dividend to its holders. Current price being $7.07 so that's something like a 0.0014% return. But I bet some would have appreciated it. I can see the UK Government making loads of money out of this bail out in the future when things recover in the world financially and they sell back the bank, bit by bit, back to the banking group itself. What that government will do with that money is anyone's guess though. Anyway, financial waffle over.

Ovavoo wrote:All British banks are good long term investments at the moment. The bankers, despite the last few years are too clever to let politicians mess things up for too long. I'd say pile in and sit back. The top 4 aussie banks pay around 6.4 - 7.4% p.a. in divs. Which is much more than you'll get from them in any of their savings accounts. The financial sector on the ASX pays an average of 7.4% at the mo. If your savings are doing nothing back home, have a butchers around. There's nothing I'm aware of that's stopping you from buying international shares on t'internet. The only downer is the exposure to exchange rates from blighty. ANZ for example: http://www.shareholder.anz.com/phoenix. ... -dividends ----- I think that if a company can pay large bonuses to its directors, and non-executive directors as well as some staff, they should channel that money back into the people that OWN the bank, ie. the shareholders. Even if it's a token gesture. The money's there, but it's going to the people the shareholders employ in effect and not the owners themselves. Even the Bank of America gave a measly 1¢ per shares dividend to its holders. Current price being $7.07 so that's something like a 0.0014% return. But I bet some would have appreciated it. I can see the UK Government making loads of money out of this bail out in the future when things recover in the world financially and they sell back the bank, bit by bit, back to the banking group itself. What that government will do with that money is anyone's guess though. Anyway, financial waffle over.

Whilst I was working away a few weeks ago I caught a bit of Hannity's show on Fox. It's mostly a patchwork of lies, misdirection and vitriol but occasionally the odd truth nips through like a stealth bomb. Hannity's worker bee asks "I don't get Obama. He lambasts greedy bankers and yet they are his political benefactors without whom he'd be nothing. Doesn't he realise he's alienating his power base?" The financial analyst replies - "He bangs the drum and then winks at Wall Street - 'Sorry guys, you know I have to be SEEN doing this or else we'll all suffer. But once the election is in the bag it's back to business as usual". Substitute Cameron for Obama and you've got the same story.

But let's be honest, arguing over who deserves how much and for what is a bit of a red-herring. The problem is the system itself as it currently stands. It is simply not sustainable.

In America something like 5% of the world's population consumes 23%+ of the world's resources - many of which are finite. This is not an economic model that can be exported to China or South America or India without catastrophic consequences. No amount of spin from politicians, bankers, the plethora of right wing think tanks funded by big business etc. can sweep this issue under the carpet for very long before it slips back out to bite us on the ankles.

I'm not saying the sky will fall in overnight. Indeed, we may see one or two upturns in the local and global economy over the next few years. But the trend will be downward. People living in the relative luxury of the US and America - where the media is inextricably connected to the social, political and economic system and fights hard to maintain it - may not initially notice any serious issues (although soaring fuel prices are hurting just about everyone) but you can bet the millions of people scratching out a meagre existence at the extremities each day will (and are).

I'm sure there are some at the top who either know or strongly suspect the game as they understand it will shortly be up and are mobilising all their assets in an attempt to pressurise politicians into giving them enough of a free ride to squeeze every last drop out of the ailing economy. Then there are the others who genuinely feel everything will go back to normal once this seemingly interminable stagnation evaporates and they'll be stacking banknotes to the roof.

I could be wrong. Indeed, I hope I'm wrong. But unless someone pulls a rabbit out of a hat (sharpish) I doubt it. Maybe in ten or twenty years we'll be looking back at 2012 thinking those were the good old days.