FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Matt Damon reads from Howard Zinn's speech

Matt Damon reads from Howard Zinn's speech "The Problem is Civil Obedience"

(5:04) Matt Damon, a lifelong friend of American historian, author, and social activist Howard Zinn, reads excerpts from a speech he gave in 1970 as part of a debate on civil disobedience.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: James, Bristol (1458 days ago)
Almost this whole speech is demonstrably false. Only a person of the deepest ignorance could write a speech like this. It is without question that living standards, on almost all measures, are better today for most people on the planet than they have ever been before. There is less war, less disease, less poverty than ever before. It was not 'massive redistribution of wealth' or ivory-tower wankers like Howard Zinn or Matt Damon who made that happen. Trade, capitalism, the rule of law, science and technology, democracy etc, created the wealth that made those improvements possible. A billion people have been lifted out of grinding poverty in the last 15 years or so thanks to globalisation and their joining the global capitalist system. I really had no idea that Matt Damon was such a stupid, ignorant twat.
ReplyVote up (239)down (270)
Original comment
Almost this whole speech is demonstrably false. Only a person of the deepest ignorance could write a speech like this. It is without question that living standards, on almost all measures, are better today for most people on the planet than they have ever been before. There is less war, less disease, less poverty than ever before. It was not 'massive redistribution of wealth' or ivory-tower wankers like Howard Zinn or Matt Damon who made that happen. Trade, capitalism, the rule of law, science and technology, democracy etc, created the wealth that made those improvements possible. A billion people have been lifted out of grinding poverty in the last 15 years or so thanks to globalisation and their joining the global capitalist system. I really had no idea that Matt Damon was such a stupid, ignorant twat.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: this is SPARTA (1453 days ago)
You are either ignorant or a complete fool.
ReplyVote up (224)down (215)
Original comment
You are either ignorant or a complete fool.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1460 days ago)
Wow. Talk about hitting the nail on the head.
ReplyVote up (230)down (262)
Original comment
Wow. Talk about hitting the nail on the head.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1460 days ago)
Did you hear that WalterEgo? We need to go back to the basics and that's the "Declaration of Independence." That's being independent of you and your kind right there in the UK. See, we don't want to be like you guys.
ReplyVote up (217)down (246)
Original comment
Did you hear that WalterEgo? We need to go back to the basics and that's the "Declaration of Independence." That's being independent of you and your kind right there in the UK. See, we don't want to be like you guys.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: FFSATHICKSHERMAN (1450 days ago)
Latest comment: "We don't want to be like you" What a statement! Fud who works in bank speaks for 300m americans. You ought to get a hobby or invest in night school and develop that low brow train of thinking.
ReplyVote up (239)down (220)
Original comment
Latest comment: "We don't want to be like you" What a statement! Fud who works in bank speaks for 300m americans. You ought to get a hobby or invest in night school and develop that low brow train of thinking.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SATAN'S RAPIST (1460 days ago)
that's right CENGFUK! let's burn everything down, starting with bankers and politicians! FOK YOU and your centralized banking system! ya codger FOK!
ReplyVote up (264)down (259)
Original comment
that's right CENGFUK! let's burn everything down, starting with bankers and politicians! FOK YOU and your centralized banking system! ya codger FOK!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1460 days ago)
Banking was a concept around 2000 BC so if we went back to the basics around the time of the declaration of independence, banking would be a part of that model. It is not a new concept. It is a service people want and people use. If you don't like it, don't use it; however, I think you'll find your life is more comfortable if you use the banking system. Most people wouldn't be able to afford a car or a house without a bank giving them loans. Rich people might be able to do it but don't you want everyone to have a chance to own a home? Or do you want the super rich to have everything?
ReplyVote up (255)down (269)
Original comment
Banking was a concept around 2000 BC so if we went back to the basics around the time of the declaration of independence, banking would be a part of that model. It is not a new concept. It is a service people want and people use. If you don't like it, don't use it; however, I think you'll find your life is more comfortable if you use the banking system. Most people wouldn't be able to afford a car or a house without a bank giving them loans. Rich people might be able to do it but don't you want everyone to have a chance to own a home? Or do you want the super rich to have everything?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1459 days ago)
Banking is cool, corruption is not. Joined together, that is disastrous.
ReplyVote up (277)down (246)
Original comment
Banking is cool, corruption is not. Joined together, that is disastrous.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1459 days ago)
So as long as I'm not corrupted, you have no problem with me being a banker? That's nice of you to say. Thanks.
ReplyVote up (273)down (235)
Original comment
So as long as I'm not corrupted, you have no problem with me being a banker? That's nice of you to say. Thanks.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1459 days ago)
Up to a point, but banking is institutionally corrupt, so a non-corrupt banker, although better than a corrupt banker, is still propping up a corrupt institution. If you were a banker fighting to bring integrity and a social conscious back into banking, then I would support you all the way. There's a brilliant scene from Frank Capra's 1932 movie "American Madness" about the role of banks in society. LINK
ReplyVote up (251)down (287)
Original comment
Up to a point, but banking is institutionally corrupt, so a non-corrupt banker, although better than a corrupt banker, is still propping up a corrupt institution. If you were a banker fighting to bring integrity and a social conscious back into banking, then I would support you all the way. There's a brilliant scene from Frank Capra's 1932 movie "American Madness" about the role of banks in society. LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1459 days ago)
So can you name anyone in banking that is doing something corrupt right now? I doubt you can.
ReplyVote up (235)down (210)
Original comment
So can you name anyone in banking that is doing something corrupt right now? I doubt you can.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1459 days ago)
Weirdly enough, nor can anyone in law enforcement even though banks are getting fined record billions for illegal activity. Latest scandal: RBS asset seizures. LINK
ReplyVote up (220)down (265)
Original comment
Weirdly enough, nor can anyone in law enforcement even though banks are getting fined record billions for illegal activity. Latest scandal: RBS asset seizures. LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1459 days ago)
What in the world is going on in the UK. First it's HSBC money laundering and now Royal Bank of Scotland. So you cannot name any corruption going on right now. You want to know how many doctors were arrested? How about teachers? Police officers? Can you name an industry where 100% of the employees are 100% honest? So you're only picking on banks. When someone does something wrong in the banking industry and they are caught, it is handled swiftly. The same things happen in all industries but you only care about the banks. Why would that be?
ReplyVote up (252)down (239)
Original comment
What in the world is going on in the UK. First it's HSBC money laundering and now Royal Bank of Scotland. So you cannot name any corruption going on right now. You want to know how many doctors were arrested? How about teachers? Police officers? Can you name an industry where 100% of the employees are 100% honest? So you're only picking on banks. When someone does something wrong in the banking industry and they are caught, it is handled swiftly. The same things happen in all industries but you only care about the banks. Why would that be?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: steve-o (1459 days ago)
Handled swiftly? Yes - the bailout was swift - record amounts of money were shifted to the banks, and whilst the dust settles they continue to collect their bonuses. As far as I can see banks are the one industry that are NOT picked on - quite the reverse, they are helped unreservedly for what was a planned exploitation of a broken system. This is why WE care about it, because seemingly governments and astroturfers like you do not. I don't need to worry about doctors/nurses and teachers because invarioubly they get jailed or barred when they break the law .
ReplyVote up (248)down (241)
Original comment
Handled swiftly? Yes - the bailout was swift - record amounts of money were shifted to the banks, and whilst the dust settles they continue to collect their bonuses. As far as I can see banks are the one industry that are NOT picked on - quite the reverse, they are helped unreservedly for what was a planned exploitation of a broken system. This is why WE care about it, because seemingly governments and astroturfers like you do not. I don't need to worry about doctors/nurses and teachers because invarioubly they get jailed or barred when they break the law .
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1459 days ago)
What bailouts? What you call a bailout is what I call a forced loan that needed to be paid back. Many banks, including the one I work for, did not want that money but was forced to take it. We had to pay a much higher interest rate than if we received the money through our regular channels. Most banks have already paid the money back and the taxpayers earned a profit off the banks. So I have to ask you again, what bailouts? Regarding bonuses, that has nothing to do with the TARP money. The TARP money (what you call a bailout) was given to increase the reserve holdings of the banks. It did not mean the CEO or any other employee did not perform their job exceptionally. I, for example, exceeded my goals so I got a bonus. Who are you to know how hard I worked and if I deserved a bonus or not? You are not in my management team so you have no idea what you're talking about. Regarding the CEO's bonus, that might be a legal issue if the bank were to withhold bonuses. Their salary includes a base pay plus bonuses for reaching particular milestones. If the CEO reached those goals, they must get paid the contracted rate for it. Regarding getting jailed when someone breaks the law, that applies to bankers too. What you were wishing is that the CEO be jailed for the actions of a couple tellers in Mexico that were accused of money laundering. The CEO did not break the law, the tellers did. Using your teacher example, when was the last time you heard of the principle of a school or the members of the school board going to jail when a teacher has sex with one of their students?
ReplyVote up (229)down (264)
Original comment
What bailouts? What you call a bailout is what I call a forced loan that needed to be paid back. Many banks, including the one I work for, did not want that money but was forced to take it. We had to pay a much higher interest rate than if we received the money through our regular channels. Most banks have already paid the money back and the taxpayers earned a profit off the banks. So I have to ask you again, what bailouts? Regarding bonuses, that has nothing to do with the TARP money. The TARP money (what you call a bailout) was given to increase the reserve holdings of the banks. It did not mean the CEO or any other employee did not perform their job exceptionally. I, for example, exceeded my goals so I got a bonus. Who are you to know how hard I worked and if I deserved a bonus or not? You are not in my management team so you have no idea what you're talking about. Regarding the CEO's bonus, that might be a legal issue if the bank were to withhold bonuses. Their salary includes a base pay plus bonuses for reaching particular milestones. If the CEO reached those goals, they must get paid the contracted rate for it. Regarding getting jailed when someone breaks the law, that applies to bankers too. What you were wishing is that the CEO be jailed for the actions of a couple tellers in Mexico that were accused of money laundering. The CEO did not break the law, the tellers did. Using your teacher example, when was the last time you heard of the principle of a school or the members of the school board going to jail when a teacher has sex with one of their students?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1458 days ago)
if a bank is given taxpayers money to bail them out or tarp forced or not i would call this a failure of the bank in its roll as a money lender.some bankers in the u.k have given back/refused to take there bonuses because they feel it is wrong to do so while being bailout.they i am sure reached there set goals and should get there bonuses but felt it was wrong to take them and gave the money back.would it be possible for you as a banker to explain why you think the reasons are for there actions?if not can you explain why you felt it was o.k to keep yours and not follow the example set by some ceo,s and other bankers
ReplyVote up (459)down (249)
Original comment
if a bank is given taxpayers money to bail them out or tarp forced or not i would call this a failure of the bank in its roll as a money lender.some bankers in the u.k have given back/refused to take there bonuses because they feel it is wrong to do so while being bailout.they i am sure reached there set goals and should get there bonuses but felt it was wrong to take them and gave the money back.would it be possible for you as a banker to explain why you think the reasons are for there actions?if not can you explain why you felt it was o.k to keep yours and not follow the example set by some ceo,s and other bankers
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1458 days ago)
You say that was a failure of the bank in its role as a money lender but what really happened is the fed changed the rules on how much cash reserves were to be kept on hand. Our bank did not meet the new requirements so the fed forced us to take the money so we could meet those new requirements. How is that a failure of the bank? Regarding my bonus, I'm keeping it because I worked hard all year long and deserved it. I did not do anything unethical, immoral, illegal, or anything else to have it taken away. By the way, these are called bonuses for a reason. You are not guaranteed to receive a bonus. You get your base salary but only get a bonus if your management team thinks you deserve it and there are budget dollars left over to allow you to get one. Our bank still made a huge profit so receiving a bonus was appropriate.
ReplyVote up (236)down (224)
Original comment
You say that was a failure of the bank in its role as a money lender but what really happened is the fed changed the rules on how much cash reserves were to be kept on hand. Our bank did not meet the new requirements so the fed forced us to take the money so we could meet those new requirements. How is that a failure of the bank? Regarding my bonus, I'm keeping it because I worked hard all year long and deserved it. I did not do anything unethical, immoral, illegal, or anything else to have it taken away. By the way, these are called bonuses for a reason. You are not guaranteed to receive a bonus. You get your base salary but only get a bonus if your management team thinks you deserve it and there are budget dollars left over to allow you to get one. Our bank still made a huge profit so receiving a bonus was appropriate.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1458 days ago)
you keep your bonus because you worked hard while people who also worked hard loose there homes because of sub prime loans the bank of america made is that fair??http://www.mondaq.c om/unitedstates/x/266114/ Financial+Services/Bank+O f+America+Goes+To+Trial+O ver+Countrywides+SubPrime +Lending+Programs. to the point that the bank is being sued for its alleged fraudulent goings on and you still feel its o.k to keep your bonus cos you worked hard?? do you feel that in some way you could have stopped this as a man of great up standing for the law plus as an expert banker you must have known of this at the time this was going on??
ReplyVote up (234)down (250)
Original comment
you keep your bonus because you worked hard while people who also worked hard loose there homes because of sub prime loans the bank of america made is that fair??http://www.mondaq.c om/unitedstates/x/266114/ Financial+Services/Bank+O f+America+Goes+To+Trial+O ver+Countrywides+SubPrime +Lending+Programs. to the point that the bank is being sued for its alleged fraudulent goings on and you still feel its o.k to keep your bonus cos you worked hard?? do you feel that in some way you could have stopped this as a man of great up standing for the law plus as an expert banker you must have known of this at the time this was going on??
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1458 days ago)
I'm not allowed to comment on any pending litigation. Besides, you are already thinking we are guilty before the case is resolved. As a consumer, my comment is that I would appreciate it if a bank gave me a loan below prime. I could save a lot of money that way so it's not a bad thing for consumers. Also, who do you think loses the most when a customer stops paying their mortgage and we have to foreclose on them? We do not want to go through a foreclosure process because it costs us a lot of money and we cannot sell the house for anything near what the loan amount is. Also the government has established HAMP money to help keep people in their homes so anyone that is still unable to pay should not be allowed to keep the house. If everyone was able to keep their house and not pay for it, everyone would refuse to pay and get a free house courtesy of your local bank. The agreement for the consumer to pay us back for the money we lent them is in their mortgage paperwork and they signed it -- probably with a lawyer and notary present (at least in all the houses I've purchased). They did not have a gun to their head and forced to sign against their will. Regarding my bonus, yes I still believe I deserve it.
ReplyVote up (213)down (266)
Original comment
I'm not allowed to comment on any pending litigation. Besides, you are already thinking we are guilty before the case is resolved. As a consumer, my comment is that I would appreciate it if a bank gave me a loan below prime. I could save a lot of money that way so it's not a bad thing for consumers. Also, who do you think loses the most when a customer stops paying their mortgage and we have to foreclose on them? We do not want to go through a foreclosure process because it costs us a lot of money and we cannot sell the house for anything near what the loan amount is. Also the government has established HAMP money to help keep people in their homes so anyone that is still unable to pay should not be allowed to keep the house. If everyone was able to keep their house and not pay for it, everyone would refuse to pay and get a free house courtesy of your local bank. The agreement for the consumer to pay us back for the money we lent them is in their mortgage paperwork and they signed it -- probably with a lawyer and notary present (at least in all the houses I've purchased). They did not have a gun to their head and forced to sign against their will. Regarding my bonus, yes I still believe I deserve it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1458 days ago)
cary you can play the fool but dont take me for one you know as i do the bank of america was found GUILTY of fraud. bonuses here comes not from hard work but from fraudulent selling of sub prime loans the bank new the buyer had no chance of being able to pay back. you still think thats o.k.some bank bonuses where paid for the amount of bad sub prime loans sold and not if the lender was able to pay it back.guilty guilty guilty!!! did any of your bonus come from this mis selling????question for boreme readers will cary twist avoid or not answer?? as you say you only deal in facts which i wouldnt disagree with you.you havent learnt that you cant argue against the facts but you still try to twist them by saying sub prime loans are good for the buyer???
ReplyVote up (253)down (253)
Original comment
cary you can play the fool but dont take me for one you know as i do the bank of america was found GUILTY of fraud. bonuses here comes not from hard work but from fraudulent selling of sub prime loans the bank new the buyer had no chance of being able to pay back. you still think thats o.k.some bank bonuses where paid for the amount of bad sub prime loans sold and not if the lender was able to pay it back.guilty guilty guilty!!! did any of your bonus come from this mis selling????question for boreme readers will cary twist avoid or not answer?? as you say you only deal in facts which i wouldnt disagree with you.you havent learnt that you cant argue against the facts but you still try to twist them by saying sub prime loans are good for the buyer???
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1458 days ago)
You don't understand half of what you said. First, there was a large mortgage company called Countrywide that was about to go bankrupt. Countrywide along with Merrill Lynch where huge companies and Bank of America was the only company large enough to absorb them. So we were asked by the feds to purchase those failing companies (along with Lehman Brothers) and we did. We couldn't buy Lehman Brothers too so they did go bankrupt. Countrywide was found guilty of causing the government backed insurance of paying out $848.2 million more than it would normally do if it wasn't for Countrywide's practices. Bank of America was lied to about the financial situation of those companies. So how can you blame a bank that assisted the country by purchasing a couple failing companies to prevent an entire economic collapse? Bank of America's stock prices plummeted because of this so it wasn't necessarily a good thing for us but we did it for the good of our country. I believe our previous CEO is being personally sued because the stockholders lost value and the merger did not get shareholder votes before the merger occurred. So in your opinion, what should Bank of America have done when asked to purchase that company? Refuse and then all the investors that loaned out their money would have lost everything and people would end up with a free house? Curious what you think should have happened.
ReplyVote up (268)down (253)
Original comment
You don't understand half of what you said. First, there was a large mortgage company called Countrywide that was about to go bankrupt. Countrywide along with Merrill Lynch where huge companies and Bank of America was the only company large enough to absorb them. So we were asked by the feds to purchase those failing companies (along with Lehman Brothers) and we did. We couldn't buy Lehman Brothers too so they did go bankrupt. Countrywide was found guilty of causing the government backed insurance of paying out $848.2 million more than it would normally do if it wasn't for Countrywide's practices. Bank of America was lied to about the financial situation of those companies. So how can you blame a bank that assisted the country by purchasing a couple failing companies to prevent an entire economic collapse? Bank of America's stock prices plummeted because of this so it wasn't necessarily a good thing for us but we did it for the good of our country. I believe our previous CEO is being personally sued because the stockholders lost value and the merger did not get shareholder votes before the merger occurred. So in your opinion, what should Bank of America have done when asked to purchase that company? Refuse and then all the investors that loaned out their money would have lost everything and people would end up with a free house? Curious what you think should have happened.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1457 days ago)
what should have happened is countywide should have done there jobs and not loaned money it new couldnt be repayed and the bank of america should have checked before it purchased countywide was not involed in fraud.if they had done the above it would have saved them from being found guilty of fraud. my guess is they new all along and thought they would get away with it.i base this on the fact that if they didnt know they wouldnt have been found guilty of fraud
ReplyVote up (248)down (239)
Original comment
what should have happened is countywide should have done there jobs and not loaned money it new couldnt be repayed and the bank of america should have checked before it purchased countywide was not involed in fraud.if they had done the above it would have saved them from being found guilty of fraud. my guess is they new all along and thought they would get away with it.i base this on the fact that if they didnt know they wouldnt have been found guilty of fraud
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1457 days ago)
The point was that you were blaming Bank of America for the actions of Countrywide. That was unfair. The government and Countrywide lied about the financial condition of the company before convincing Bank of America to purchase Countrywide. The decision needed to be made faster than the investigation to determine the truth could be found. So after discovering the financial disaster Countrywide was really in, Bank of America considered letting it go bankrupt even after making that huge investment. The bank could still bankrupt that portion because it kept it as a separate business entity instead of fully merging with it into it's larger business. So I have to ask you this question. Why do you think Countrywide was going bankrupt in the first place? I think you could help yourself by doing a little research on the basic functions of who loses when a person stops paying for money a bank gives out as a loan. Let me give you a clear example. You go to your local bank to borrow $1000 to buy a computer and use all of it in the purchase of that computer. Three months later you lose your job and can no longer afford the monthly payments on that computer. Now let's say the bank takes the computer back from you. Question #1: Do you feel it's appropriate for the bank to take back the computer if you are unable to pay for it or do you think they should let you keep it and not have to pay anything back after your job loss? Question #2: How much do you think the bank could sell that computer for if the original price was $1000 and you had it for 3 months? Question #3: How much administration costs (including legal fees) do you think the bank has to pay to get the computer back from you and to resell it? Question #4: In summary, was it good for the bank that you didn't pay for the computer or was it bad for the bank?
ReplyVote up (272)down (263)
Original comment
The point was that you were blaming Bank of America for the actions of Countrywide. That was unfair. The government and Countrywide lied about the financial condition of the company before convincing Bank of America to purchase Countrywide. The decision needed to be made faster than the investigation to determine the truth could be found. So after discovering the financial disaster Countrywide was really in, Bank of America considered letting it go bankrupt even after making that huge investment. The bank could still bankrupt that portion because it kept it as a separate business entity instead of fully merging with it into it's larger business. So I have to ask you this question. Why do you think Countrywide was going bankrupt in the first place? I think you could help yourself by doing a little research on the basic functions of who loses when a person stops paying for money a bank gives out as a loan. Let me give you a clear example. You go to your local bank to borrow $1000 to buy a computer and use all of it in the purchase of that computer. Three months later you lose your job and can no longer afford the monthly payments on that computer. Now let's say the bank takes the computer back from you. Question #1: Do you feel it's appropriate for the bank to take back the computer if you are unable to pay for it or do you think they should let you keep it and not have to pay anything back after your job loss? Question #2: How much do you think the bank could sell that computer for if the original price was $1000 and you had it for 3 months? Question #3: How much administration costs (including legal fees) do you think the bank has to pay to get the computer back from you and to resell it? Question #4: In summary, was it good for the bank that you didn't pay for the computer or was it bad for the bank?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1457 days ago)
q1 yes bank get it back q2 not a lot $250 q3 $400 but that will be added to my costs q4 it tuff sh1t on the bank as thats what they do eg risk taking. in your example i at the time was a good risk but if i did have a low/no income the bank shouldnt lend.oh but they would still lend but at a higher rate of repayments to cover the greater risk making it more harder for me to pay for it and fail on my loan,but the bank sells that risk on (under writers??) so the bank is always in a win win position so lets not try and make it out that the poor old bank takes the hit as it doesnt question for you if the poor old bank of america is whiter then white why was it found guilty of fraud in a court of law??countrywide did the fraud and bank of america got done for it.to me its the same as if i buy stolen goods and know they where stolen i would get done but if i could prove i didnt know i could be let off so its as if the bank of america couldnt prove it didnt know they where stolen.bank of america took countrywide on because it new it was failing the default loans cost had already been sold on and they could see a nice little buck to be made in the long run.dont try and say the bank of america took on countrywide because it felt sorry for all the poor sub prime loan people so they could keep there homes it was done for gain because thats what banks do
ReplyVote up (220)down (211)
Original comment
q1 yes bank get it back q2 not a lot $250 q3 $400 but that will be added to my costs q4 it tuff sh1t on the bank as thats what they do eg risk taking. in your example i at the time was a good risk but if i did have a low/no income the bank shouldnt lend.oh but they would still lend but at a higher rate of repayments to cover the greater risk making it more harder for me to pay for it and fail on my loan,but the bank sells that risk on (under writers??) so the bank is always in a win win position so lets not try and make it out that the poor old bank takes the hit as it doesnt question for you if the poor old bank of america is whiter then white why was it found guilty of fraud in a court of law??countrywide did the fraud and bank of america got done for it.to me its the same as if i buy stolen goods and know they where stolen i would get done but if i could prove i didnt know i could be let off so its as if the bank of america couldnt prove it didnt know they where stolen.bank of america took countrywide on because it new it was failing the default loans cost had already been sold on and they could see a nice little buck to be made in the long run.dont try and say the bank of america took on countrywide because it felt sorry for all the poor sub prime loan people so they could keep there homes it was done for gain because thats what banks do
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1457 days ago)
Unbelieveable that you think the banks want to foreclose on homes. With that, I say this discussion is over.
ReplyVote up (207)down (234)
Original comment
Unbelieveable that you think the banks want to foreclose on homes. With that, I say this discussion is over.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1457 days ago)
whats unbelieveable is the fact the bank of america put all the toxic loans together and sold them on to gov backed under writers as if they where good and o.k possibly leaving the cost to the usa taxpayer pls dont try and make out that the bank gave a toss about that would happen to the sub prime loans people. this post ends with the words guilty as charged in a court of law
ReplyVote up (173)down (214)
Original comment
whats unbelieveable is the fact the bank of america put all the toxic loans together and sold them on to gov backed under writers as if they where good and o.k possibly leaving the cost to the usa taxpayer pls dont try and make out that the bank gave a toss about that would happen to the sub prime loans people. this post ends with the words guilty as charged in a court of law
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1459 days ago)
I don't know what's going on either. It's as if British banks are trying to outdo American banks in who can get the biggest fine. Currently, JP Morgan are way ahead of the field with a $13 billion fine over their mortgage practices. I'm not sure RBS have done enough to top that. Focus is on banks because corruption in banking has huge global consequences, compared with say, corruption in the hairdressing industry.
ReplyVote up (210)down (240)
Original comment
I don't know what's going on either. It's as if British banks are trying to outdo American banks in who can get the biggest fine. Currently, JP Morgan are way ahead of the field with a $13 billion fine over their mortgage practices. I'm not sure RBS have done enough to top that. Focus is on banks because corruption in banking has huge global consequences, compared with say, corruption in the hairdressing industry.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SATAN'S RAPIST (1459 days ago)
LINK . Shut them down!!
ReplyVote up (177)down (213)
Original comment
LINK . Shut them down!!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1459 days ago)
I would never have guessed the first bank to be shut down for money laundering would be in Russia. But hey, you gotta start somewhere.
ReplyVote up (250)down (230)
Original comment
I would never have guessed the first bank to be shut down for money laundering would be in Russia. But hey, you gotta start somewhere.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
TYT - Ellen Page's statement on sexual abuse in Hollywood
TYT - Ellen Page's statement on sexual abuse in Hollywood
Keanu Reeves' custom motorcycle shop
Keanu Reeves' custom motorcycle shop
Inside Robert Downey Jr's home
Inside Robert Downey Jr's home
Buster Keaton's amazing stunts
Buster Keaton's amazing stunts
Tom Hanks on the Harvey Weinstein scandal
Tom Hanks on the Harvey Weinstein scandal