- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 12,383
No, because the government guarantees the deposits of customers. Which is understandable, but hardly conducive to banks behaving. It's actually the taxpayers who take the hit.
If the government had its own bank and guaranteed those deposits, but guaranteed nobody else's money in other banks, it'd have the entire market.
No, because the government guarantees the deposits of customers. Which is understandable, but hardly conducive to banks behaving. It's actually the taxpayers who take the hit.
If the government had its own bank and guaranteed those deposits, but guaranteed nobody else's money in other banks, it'd have the entire market.
=per bank you have an account in*up to 85k...
Shit like this needs to fail for people to realise that business should not carry on this way.Privatise the gains, socialise the losses.
It should fail, the banks and shareholders should take the hit. Either that or uk.gov gets a massive controlling interest and sells shares at massive profit when it's back on it's feet.
Either way: state aid...
I'll assume those so keen for the shareholders to bail them out don't have a private pension. As when we mention "shareholders" that's pretty much who we mean.
People are fucking misusing YouTube these days to an extent I can hardly fathom. Who tunes in and spends an hour watching a loonatic in a throne, wearing a leather jacked and has his hair tips bleached telling others what to think?