Apparently we're not in recession some people on here have said

[MrSmith]

Banks supplied the credit. Banks adopted very lax lending criteria. They are part of the problem. You can't have a credit bubble without suppliers of credit. You need to question how vast amounts of credit were generated. How did they do it?

They did what the banking regulations allowed them to do, they played their part in the housing bubble but they are not to blame, it was never their remit to control property inflation.

 

 

You need to understand more about the relationsips between the military, corporations and politicians. Start with the USA.

 

I do understand it, governments decide to go to war and weapons manufactures supply the weapon, but they are not to blame for the war.

 

If that is the sum of your argument you need to explain why, until the last 20-30 years, most successful corporations operated with much smaller pay differentials. We also see the problem in the public sector. You aren't suggesting that high differentials in the public sector are justified too can you? Your demand for talent argument would certainly support that.

As you are the one claiming I am wrong, maybe you should explain why there is a difference between the pay of a cleaner and the pay of the chief executive.

[HeadingNorth]

Banks supplied the credit. Banks adopted very lax lending criteria. They are part of the problem. You can't have a credit bubble without suppliers of credit.

 

You can't have one without borrowers either; and borrowers are responsible for their own debts.

[I1L2T3]

You can't have one without borrowers either; and borrowers are responsible for their own debts.

 

I agree. Read my posts above.

[I1L2T3]

They did what the banking regulations allowed them to do, they played their part in the housing bubble but they are not to blame, it was never their remit to control property inflation.

 

I do understand it, governments decide to go to war and weapons manufactures supply the weapon, but they are not to blame for the war.

 

As you are the one claiming I am wrong, maybe you should explain why there is a difference between the pay of a cleaner and the pay of the chief executive.

 

I agree that banking regulations could have been better. Labour agree too. They've admitted mistakes. If banks supplied the credit for the credit bubble they are partly to blame. Absolutely no doubt about it. Again, you need to understand how the credit was generated. And the terms used to supply it to customers.

 

Again, it's not a simple situation. The manufacturers need the wars to happen so their weapons can be used. Again I'd recommend you look at the relationship between policiticians, the military and manufacturers in the USA.

 

I'm not arguing there shouldn't be a pay differential between the cleaner and the CEO. I'm arguing about the increasing size of the differential in recent times.

[JFKvsNixon]

I agree that banking regulations could have been better. Labour agree too. They've admitted mistakes. If banks supplied the credit for the credit bubble they are partly to blame. Absolutely no doubt about it. Again, you need to understand how the credit was generated. And the terms used to supply it to customers.

 

Again, it's not a simple situation. The manufacturers need the wars to happen so their weapons can be used. Again I'd recommend you look at the relationship between policiticians, the military and manufacturers in the USA.

 

I'm not arguing there shouldn't be a pay differential between the cleaner and the CEO. I'm arguing about the increasing size of the differential in recent times.

 

For me, the crucial part of the problem was the repackaging and re-selling of loans and mortgages. So the bank who issued the loan or mortgage didn't become accountable for it's success or failure. This then encouraged the bank to issue as many loans and mortgages as possible, it was a win/win for them.

 

I do have a degree of sympathy for some of the banks, if they didn't follow the paths of the others and grow their business using the flawed business model, they would have been swallowed up by their competitors.

 

At the moment the banks are rightly getting hammered, but I think that their behaviour was only a symptom of the big challenge that is facing the western world, and that is it's obsession with the short term and the end of year figure.

 

My hunch is that maybe the shift to public share ownership from private ownership of companies and businesses has brought this situation forward.

[MrSmith]

I agree that banking regulations could have been better. Labour agree too. They've admitted mistakes. If banks supplied the credit for the credit bubble they are partly to blame. Absolutely no doubt about it. Again, you need to understand how the credit was generated. And the terms used to supply it to customers.

 

The banks did what the politicians wanted them to do, even now politicians are calling for banks to lend more money, banks exist to make a profit, but it’s the responsibility of politicians to make sure they do it ethically.

 

 

Again, it's not a simple situation. The manufacturers need the wars to happen so their weapons can be used. Again I'd recommend you look at the relationship between policiticians, the military and manufacturers in the USA.

Many weapons are never used and become obsolete, I just can't imagine were you get the idea that weapons manufactures start wars in order to sell and use their weapons.

 

I'm not arguing there shouldn't be a pay differential between the cleaner and the CEO. I'm arguing about the increasing size of the differential in recent times.

 

Why would a company pay its staff more than is necessary, they aren’t charities, there would be no reason to pay a cleaner or a chief executive more than they have to.

[I1L2T3]

The banks did what the politicians wanted them to do, even now politicians are calling for banks to lend more money, banks exist to make a profit, but it’s the responsibility of politicians to make sure they do it ethically.

 

Many weapons are never used and become obsolete, I just can't imagine were you get the idea that weapons manufactures start wars in order to sell and use their weapons.

 

Why would a company pay its staff more than is necessary, they aren’t charities, there would be no reason to pay a cleaner or a chief executive more than they have to.

 

Of course politicians want banks to lend. In our current economic model if banks don't lend then the economy doesn't function properly. It is not the responsibility of politicians to ensure the ethical operation of companies either. Doing business ethically is a clear corporate responsibility. My company operates ethically - we are not told to do it by politicians. We simply have a strong code of ethics and commitment to trasparency that we expect all employees to adhere to. If they don't play ball they leave. Any company can operate ethically and responsibly - it requires internal structures and drive to make it happen. That drive wasn't there in the banks. The banks had a huge amount of trust placed in them and they betrayed it.

 

If you think there is a complete disconnect between the military and arms manufacturers, i.e. that manufacturers simply respond to the demand for their products, them you are being very naive.

 

The issue is that the top executives are not worth what they earn. Not in the media, the banks or wherever you care to look.

[MrSmith]

Of course politicians want banks to lend. In our current economic model if banks don't lend then the economy doesn't function properly. It is not the responsibility of politicians to ensure the ethical operation of companies either. Doing business ethically is a clear corporate responsibility. My company operates ethically - we are not told to do it by politicians. We simply have a strong code of ethics and commitment to trasparency that we expect all employees to adhere to. If they don't play ball they leave. Any company can operate ethically and responsibly - it requires internal structures and drive to make it happen. That drive wasn't there in the banks. The banks had a huge amount of trust placed in them and they betrayed it.

 

If you think there is a complete disconnect between the military and arms manufacturers, i.e. that manufacturers simply respond to the demand for their products, them you are being very naive.

 

The issue is that the top executives are not worth what they earn. Not in the media, the banks or wherever you care to look.

 

I didn't say companies, I said banks, and banks are regulated by the government, even your company is regulated by the government, there are many things you have to do, employment rights, wages, health and safety.

 

I think it would be better if you produced some evidence that suggests weapons manufactures start wars.

 

Obviously their employers think they are, why else would they pay them so much.

[I1L2T3]

I didn't say companies, I said banks, and banks are regulated by the government, even your company is regulated by the government, there are many things you have to do, employment rights, wages, health and safety.

 

I think it would be better if you produced some evidence that suggests weapons manufactures start wars.

 

Obviously their employers think they are, why else would they pay them so much.

 

Banks are companies. All companies are regulated by the government to some extent. The government cannot regulate every aspect of the internal operation of a company. Nor should it. It is up to every company to operate ethically (to the extent it wants to, for better or worse) and of course within the law. It seems that there may be significant scope for prosecution of bankers anyway. Not only were some of them not operating ethically, others may have been breaking the law. Fraud is fraud at the end of the day.

 

As for the weapons manufacturers, War is business. I finished this book not so long ago. I recommend you read it if you get a chance:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Shadow-World-Inside-Global/dp/1452635102

 

The renumeration of top executives has been in the news lately. Shareholders have been rejecting the pay packages of executives at some companies. You also need to learn a bit about how renumeration committees work too.

[MrSmith]

Banks are companies. All companies are regulated by the government to some extent. The government cannot regulate every aspect of the internal operation of a company. Nor should it. It is up to every company to operate ethically (to the extent it wants to, for better or worse) and of course within the law. It seems that there may be significant scope for prosecution of bankers anyway. Not only were some of them not operating ethically, others may have been breaking the law. Fraud is fraud at the end of the day.

 

As for the weapons manufacturers, War is business. I finished this book not so long ago. I recommend you read it if you get a chance:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Shadow-World-Inside-Global/dp/1452635102

 

The renumeration of top executives has been in the news lately. Shareholders have been rejecting the pay packages of executives at some companies. You also need to learn a bit about how renumeration committees work too.

 

Yes banks are companies but they had government regulations which were relaxed, so any problem associated with the relaxing of the regulation was the governments fault.

 

Right so shareholders award executive pay, so not the fault of the company which I said several pages ago.

 

I wouldn’t read a book to look for proof that weapons companies start wars. They sell weapons to the people that start wars, so the war isn’t their fault.