Most bankers are crooks

[ultimatesens]

Public sector pensions are not traded funds.

 

Public sector pensions are being threatened by the government in order to cut the national debt.

 

There is no talk of cutting interest payments to bondholders to reduce the national debt.

 

Why is it O.K. to lie and go back on your word to public servants but not international investors?

[ultimatesens]

Ok, I think you need to study economics and as for point 10 who would take the risk and do all the hard work to set up and run these businesses that suddenly magicly appear? There will be no reward for doing so. Your policies would take us back to the 19th century.

 

I dont want this, so start a political party and have a manifesto with all your idealistic crap in and then we can choose to vote for you if we so wish. That's democracy!

 

Why do I need to study economics? If you have a specific point to make about what I've said then make it. We're all ears.

 

As for point 10...

 

Why bother?

 

To make your first £100 million off course.

 

We hear this argument often, if I reach my £100 million limit then I might as well shut down my company and take the rest of the year off. What's the point in taking the risk or working?

 

I retort...

 

Allthough the owner of a company may be unable to make any more money there is no reason why the company should cease to operate. The employees may be far far off that limit and still need the jobs. Customers still need products. Public services still benefit from the tax.

 

This argument is clearly the greedy selfish corporate equivellant of "I'm taking my ball in because I can't have my own greedy way."

 

Solution, we have a law that says your entitled to take to year off but you have no right to shut down your own company. You can stay if you like working, and pay the 100% tax or you can give control of the company to another director or employee who is willing to keep the business open, until such time as you stop sulking.

 

In a democratic society we can do what we want. We can make corporations work for us rather than the other way around.

 

Simple.

 

Specifically Which of these policies would take us back to the 19th century? In what way? I fail to see how time travel is possible. Again, if you have a point to make then make it. Otherwise stop trying to convince people with ill thought out soundbite statements.

 

As for your final statement,

 

No independent party has a chance in hell of winning the election as you full well know. The mainstream media airwaves are so completely dominated by the two major parties. It costs so much money to finance a nationwide election campaign that only the rich can even think about it and even then they know themselves it's a waste of money.

 

So the only way to be successfull in politics is to join one of the two main parties. Of course then you have party whips telling you to toe the party line. Even politicians themselves often vote against their own conscience because they have to follow the party line which in many cases they don't agree with.

 

Voters vote for these parties because they think there's little choice and they don't want the other party to get in (actually they don't, most people simply stay at home).

 

Your argument is essentially....

 

We have a fair democratic process, therefore you can change the system from within the system by starting a political party and becoming prime minister.

 

I retort,

 

We do not have a fair democratic process. What we have is undemocratic paid for political parties and consequently, rampant banking fraud that hurts the people. A truly "democratic" process would have a democratic "output." What we have is a sham.

[fruitisbad]

There has got to be some middle ground within business. We have seen that large nationalised businesses lack the drive to be innovative, budgets over run, and people with vested interests want to stay in power. But complete free market capitalism puts the emphasis on profit rather than quality of service, it makes the rich richer, and promotes a culture of greed.

 

There has got to be some kind of ethical capitalism, reward people with new ideas but try to even out the rich poor divide.

 

If I won euro millions or something I would just set up a load of not for profit companies. Not having to pay shareholders would mean we can compete on price against the big players but importantly we would be employing staff at reasonable wages. It wouldn't remove the element of competition which would force companies to continually up their game.

 

How about large goverment investments for not for profit organisations? essentially a well run national company.

[Wildcat]

fruitisbad, I think you will find budgets over run in private sector as well as the public sector. The most notorious examples are from private sector companies delivering public services. The ones you won't hear about are private sector companies doing their own thing because of confidentiality clauses and no democratic reason for transparency, That doesn't however mean they don't happen, they do and especially where technology is concerned.

 

not for profit organisations... ie third sector invest their profits and hide them in director salaries and bonuses, there is very little difference between a not for profit organisation nowadays and any other business.

 

If public sector wasn't in permanent revolution, downsizing, reorganising at the whims of whatever minister has just arrived and wants to make thier mark and they were left to do their own thing, bed in change and take time to evaluate programs, learn from mistakes and successes they would be more productive. In most examples I can think of they are objectively shown to be more productive than privatised competitors anyway. it is a myth and propoganda put out by the international consultancies like Anderson that profit from privatisation, or small state Randian extremists like the Taxpayer's alliance that they are better off outside public control.

[*_ash_*]

Ok, this has moved on since page 3 last night, so I'll just answer your quote at mine Anna, then I'll have a nosy at the thread tomorrow...

 

Hi ash,

Yes you're right, I was thinking more of people already on the ladder, not first time buyers. I didn't mean to give offence.

I'm not sure why you'd think you've offended me... but anyway, this lapse in understanding is a central part to this discussion/your argument.

As usual the people at the bottom are the ones to getting shafted. I also suspect that they figure quite highly in the figures for repossessions through no fault of their own.

I know a lot of people who bought in the mid 90s who were no better off than me, who took the decision to buy homes for in the region of £20-30k, who now have nearly paid off mortgages of that value, but own homes worth nearing £160k. Their wages haven't changed in such a way in that small time scale. I've never heard them complain. Nor have I heard anyone who owned a home, or bought before the huge increases complain. Why is this?

 

You rightly quoted me that people who have these house values will require the same to re-buy another home - however, this is another avenue where people (us - not bankers) have grasped huge wealth for their futures - and that is landlords, who not only see their investment tripling in value, but the end result of the crisis means that rent-values also increase... two for the price of one! I've also never seen any landlords from the early 90's+ ever complain either.

 

Many people might not be crooks like the bankers, but they both gained a lot. And neither are complaining.

 

This was what I was referring to here...

 

 

However Anna, I never saw, and have still never seen a single post in here from anyone who was complaining about their house value vastly increasing during this build up; up to threefold in only a decade, in most cases.

[*_ash_*]

Property pricing and lending were factors under the control of bankers. They (the bankers) chose to lend to people with no money for shot term personal gain.

They did, and other banks bought into this idea because it makes money, short term, (though I'd argue the 'no money' point, as this would incorrectly be categorising (or look like impying) 'no money - as no job'). I've never denied that. If you used the word 'income', then we could be clearer.

 

A banks job is to assess risk.

Maybe in the past, but things have moved on. If a bank knows it can sell a mortgage on to someone else (via investors), then they would lose money if they didn't keep up with competitors.

 

If I walk in to a bank and ask for a million pound loan to bet on the horses an honest banker would obviously be a fool to lend to me.

 

A dishonest banker wouldn't care. He would get a nice big massive bonus because of the new million pound asset he's created for the bank out of thin air. When the bank he works for collapses (as many have), he doesnt care, he's already made his money and probably moved on to a cushy job working for a regulator.

You're right that a dishonest banker wouldn't care. Why would he/she? If they are dishonest, then they aren't honest.

 

The whole system falls apart when banks start lending money they don't have to people who can't afford to pay it back.

Of course it does. But like I pointed out in page 3, governments like lending and spending because spending makes people happy. Votes.

Tricking other people in to buying all the "risk" in "securitized derivatives" amounts to fraud. It's also more fraudulent when credit rating agencies go along with the "CONSPIRACY" by giving junk derivatives an AAA rating.

You can only trick people into doing things, when they are naïve. Most people are.

 

Don't be fooled in to thinking this economic collapse is an accident.

It's not. I posted that earlier. You just quoted something else that I said.

[Supertramp]

Why do I need to study economics? If you have a specific point to make about what I've said then make it. We're all ears.

 

As for point 10...

 

Why bother?

 

To make your first £100 million off course.

 

We hear this argument often, if I reach my £100 million limit then I might as well shut down my company and take the rest of the year off. What's the point in taking the risk or working?

 

I retort...

 

Allthough the owner of a company may be unable to make any more money there is no reason why the company should cease to operate. The employees may be far far off that limit and still need the jobs. Customers still need products. Public services still benefit from the tax.

 

This argument is clearly the greedy selfish corporate equivellant of "I'm taking my ball in because I can't have my own greedy way."

 

Solution, we have a law that says your entitled to take to year off but you have no right to shut down your own company. You can stay if you like working, and pay the 100% tax or you can give control of the company to another director or employee who is willing to keep the business open, until such time as you stop sulking.

 

In a democratic society we can do what we want. We can make corporations work for us rather than the other way around.

 

Simple.

 

Specifically Which of these policies would take us back to the 19th century? In what way? I fail to see how time travel is possible. Again, if you have a point to make then make it. Otherwise stop trying to convince people with ill thought out soundbite statements.

 

As for your final statement,

 

No independent party has a chance in hell of winning the election as you full well know. The mainstream media airwaves are so completely dominated by the two major parties. It costs so much money to finance a nationwide election campaign that only the rich can even think about it and even then they know themselves it's a waste of money.

 

So the only way to be successfull in politics is to join one of the two main parties. Of course then you have party whips telling you to toe the party line. Even politicians themselves often vote against their own conscience because they have to follow the party line which in many cases they don't agree with.

 

Voters vote for these parties because they think there's little choice and they don't want the other party to get in (actually they don't, most people simply stay at home).

 

Your argument is essentially....

 

We have a fair democratic process, therefore you can change the system from within the system by starting a political party and becoming prime minister.

 

I retort,

 

We do not have a fair democratic process. What we have is undemocratic paid for political parties and consequently, rampant banking fraud that hurts the people. A truly "democratic" process would have a democratic "output." What we have is a sham.

 

Quick point, then I'll respond to why your economic policies will result in further unemployment and an economy that's worse off a little later. You claim to represent the majority, therefore it should be simple for you to stand for election and win. With your widespread support you could have a candidate in every constituency and obviously you already have the publicity.

 

Secondly you didn't respond to my point about the unions not backing the closure of the ports and again how is bullying legitimate businesses in any way democratic?

[Supertramp]

See responses below. Thanks

 

1. Bring the issuance of currency under democratic control. Remove the "independance" of the bank of England (who does that serve anyway?). The Bank of England sets interest rates independently of any government, therefore they look for more long term results from their monetary policy than a government would as it is typically vying for a boost before the next election

 

2. Go over the bankers books with a fine tooth comb. Prosecute the directors of those banks found guilty of accounting fraud. Seize their assets to repay depositors who's money they lost. Fine with that, however I don't think the major issue was banks committing fraud. They were selling crap products which were getting AAA ratings from the ratings agencies because the products were so complex they didn't understand.

 

3. Abolish british tax havens. Charge foreign companies the difference in tax before they are allowed to operate in the U.K. OK I see where you are coming from, however it would reduce foreign investment in the UK. Foreign investment has been very good for us and created a lot of jobs, created a lot of wealth and in turn tax receipts. The issue is that unless you have an international tax system where everyone pays the same tax

 

4. Ban usuary, the charging of interest on loans. How would this work?

 

5. Cease all borrowing against the international bond market. If we need to borrow money we can print it ourselves. Yes like Zimbabwe

 

6. Pay off the national debt. Tell the Rothschilds to take a running jump. (Like Hugo Chavez did in Venezuala). Pay off the national debt with what money? Not sure what Chavez did and can't find anything on it

 

7. Ban the sale/purchase of dodgy derivatives by companies operating in the U.K. (Like they did in Brazil) Did they? I thought they just put a 1% tax on trades and made sure all companies were registered and approved Bank of Brazil.

 

8. Print the money needed to get the economy going again. Rather than hand the money over to banks, use it to invest in infrastructure, green energy and social programs (Like they did in Australia). Not a fan of printing the money but would gladly support increase in spending on infrastructure. Nuclear power instead of windmills. Social programs? Not more benefits!!

 

9. Ban lobbying in politics by powerfull private interests. Ban all lobbying, I'm not a fan of the unions being able to lobby Labour either or Greenpeace etc., Ban political whips too, people vote for their MP not a party per se, therefore the voters wants should come before those of the party

 

10. Impose a cap on wealth. 100% tax rate above a certain profit level. Reduces investment, innovation and growth, why would anyone want to grow their business beyond a certain level if the government takes all the money. People are greedy, it's in their nature. Also is this per company or person?

 

11. Insist on openness and accountability at the world bank/IMF level. Insist that our representatives broadcast the dialogue of these meetings. Implement a regime of zero privacy at the top of the social heirarchy. You want power? it will cost you your privacy. The more power you have the more intrusive is the surveilance. Don't like it, don't work in politics. Zero privacy? No one would sacrifice privacy to work in politics.

 

12. Nationalise banking institutions operating in the U.K. break them up so they can never again threaten the fabric of society. Ban banks that have excessive leverage. Break up banks so they are not too big to fail, nationalise them for a time if required but then sell them off again when the time is right to benefit the tax payer. If they screw up next time just let them fail, the market will sort it out

 

Before you all jump down my throat with the argument that rich companies will all move overseas....

 

GOOD. That will open up the market here for new companies to replace them. The services they offered can be offered by British workers in British companies. Can't sell your cars in Britain because the tax laws are too invasive? GOOD, Selfish greedy tax avoiding corporate slime is not welcome here. British companies will manufacture British cars and sell them to british consumers instead. You want to do business in this market, you play by our rules. Without going into too much detail you would lose a lot of jobs that wont instantly be replaced by some magic British companies who are not greedy, secondly you would drive up inflation

 

Where does the money come from to start new manufacturing businesses? It comes from the £600bn we found instantly to pay off the bankers. If they have money for banker welfare they have money for investment in jobs. £600bn banker bailout?? Most of that was in guarantees, not cold hard cash, which doesn't work when building infrastructure

[Lab-rat]

To be honest I'm not voting for any of them next time (politicians)....they have too much of a vested interest somewhere along the lines!

 

People vote on fear to keep the circus going.....all crooks who lead by say as i do not do as i say!

 

All politicians these days come from the banking, solicitor / barrister or accounting backgrounds.....enough said

 

A good example of misselling of financial products can be seen by almost everyone who will be doing their xmas shopping in a certain high street store......"would you be interested in a store card & save 10%".......dare you to ask them:- What is the the interest rate & is it calculated as apr or flat rate; what are the key point terms & conditions; what is the minimum payment as a %age per month of outstanding balance........wait for the open mouth gaze!!! Enough said!!!!!! It relies on people being stupid because who would want to buy products on 10% off but 20% APR?????

 

The sale of financial products by all institutions & banks in this country needs a radical overhaul!

[Cyclone]

You're demonstratively wrong about the background of politicians.

 

If you feel that strongly about it why not stand as an MP yourself?

 

And when offered a store card, are you not given an application form with all those details on it. It's not misselling if a person on a till can't answer those questions and you don't bother to read the application form.