The Natural Philosopher
wibbled on Friday 11 December 2009 10:39


They [banks] are no different in principle from a dealer selling crack on
a sink estate.

That really has to go down as the ultimate quote in the history of failed
banking!


The real answer here is to force mutualisation on high street banks.
And split them from investment banks completely.

If a bank is too big to fail, chop it up.

That's exactly what I've said.

There is no way that he should have been allowed to hedge my grand in RBS
against any investments.

Secondly, the banks must have been not doing their job to even start buying
into the sub prime stuff. Does no one look into these things?

Goodwin should have been fired in disgrace, not bribed off into early
retirement. There are a lot of staff in my local branch who are not happy
with the way he has sullied the bank's name and ruined its standing.

--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:07:51 +0000 The Natural Philosopher wrote :
The Republic of Ireland is a prime example of an economy based near
entirely on the property boom.

No, based on exports.

Don't know about that, but presumably Eire-based companies cannot find
a particular advantage when trading with mainland Europe whilst (say)
Airbus jobs in the UK are safer than most?

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on' Melbourne, Australia
www.superbeam.co.uk www.superbeam.com www.greentram.com

Huge
wibbled on Friday 11 December 2009 11:00

On 2009-12-11, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Tim W
writes

If we banned speculation and encouraged a long term view, the banking
geniuses would have normal lives, wouldn't burn out, would still be doing
what they do when they are 50 with the benefit of wisdom that age and
experience brings and the world would be a better place.

Yes but, how?

That was my response, too.

I didn't say I had the answer to the implementation. But I am clear in my
mind that that is what needs to be done. The current system encourages
behaviour which is not to the long term good, therefore it is a sub optimal
system.

My proposal would encourage, I believe, better and more productive (on
average) behaviour. There may be other ways.

Elsewhere I whinged about commodity trading being a siphon on any profit
made from growing crops. I was smartly put down on the basis that it
provides certainty to the market.

Quite.

Once an organisation has issued tradable shares it is open to the whims
of the whiz kid investors.

Or anyone who wants to save, have a pension and so forth.

There is a difference between saving/pensions by investing long term in
either a few big companies with solid futures or lots of little but wisely
chosen companies, again with long term expectations.

OTOH, the Dot-Com-Bomb was the finest example of the worst of the system:
people lobbing money into random startups with non credible business plans
in the hope of making a quick buck. Venture capitalists are the people best
placed to handle "unusual" company investments - they tend to be more
careful when it comes to they own money. That doesn't make them adverse to
taking on risk but they do tend to actually pay a great deal of attention to
what is going on.



One thing I have wondered about is the *sale* of stock not actually
owned. Not quite the same as somebody selling your house without your
knowledge but along similar lines.

W-e-e-e-e-e-lll. Naked shorting isn't allowed other than by market
makers, so it doesn't really happen. If the likes of you and I want
to short a stock, we have to buy or borrow the shares in the first
place.



--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

Tim W wrote:
The Natural Philosopher
wibbled on Friday 11 December 2009 10:39


They [banks] are no different in principle from a dealer selling crack on
a sink estate.

That really has to go down as the ultimate quote in the history of failed
banking!


The real answer here is to force mutualisation on high street banks.
And split them from investment banks completely.

If a bank is too big to fail, chop it up.

That's exactly what I've said.

There is no way that he should have been allowed to hedge my grand in RBS
against any investments.

Secondly, the banks must have been not doing their job to even start buying
into the sub prime stuff. Does no one look into these things?


well Moodies did and rated em all triple A, so despite the financial
press being awash with Dire Warnings (TM) all the council treaurerers
and all the find managers bought em like..er. crack of a sink estate
drug dealer!

Goodwin should have been fired in disgrace, not bribed off into early
retirement. There are a lot of staff in my local branch who are not happy
with the way he has sullied the bank's name and ruined its standing.

I bet they were happy enough with their bonuses tho.

Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Huge
writes

One thing I have wondered about is the *sale* of stock not actually
owned. Not quite the same as somebody selling your house without your
knowledge but along similar lines.

W-e-e-e-e-e-lll. Naked shorting isn't allowed other than by market
makers, so it doesn't really happen. If the likes of you and I want
to short a stock, we have to buy or borrow the shares in the first
place.

OK so who *lends* the stock and is it actually theirs?


people who own it may lend it. For a slight premium.




regards

Tony Bryer wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:07:51 +0000 The Natural Philosopher wrote :
The Republic of Ireland is a prime example of an economy based near
entirely on the property boom.

No, based on exports.

Don't know about that, but presumably Eire-based companies cannot find
a particular advantage when trading with mainland Europe whilst (say)
Airbus jobs in the UK are safer than most?


That's why Eire jobs will have to face a 25% or so reduction in wages.


Anyway never mind 4.5% reduction in GDP, teh very very little company I
help along suffered 33% reduction.

But fortunately, I warned em, and they have made it through. Just.

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:06:38 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

big snip

Frankly, given that all I have is savings, Id rather be in the Eurozone..


Of course, your personal situation inevitably leads to one particular
point of view.

My comments were general, about the overall situation, and not linked
to any particular set of personal circumstances.

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:07:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bruce wrote:
To give an idea of what must happen here, regardless of which party is
in government, just look at what the Irish have had to do. At least
the Irish have had the courage to (1) admit how bad things are and
(2) actually *do something* about it. Here, Labour have done neither.

The Republic of Ireland is a prime example of an economy based near
entirely on the property boom.

No, based on exports.


Dave Plowman is right. Irish "wealth" has been entirely based on a
property asset bubble, backed by risky deals in the financial services
sector which have come unstuck.

Irish manufacturing has been in decline for a few years now as
companies like Dell and Apple source components and assemblies from
cheaper markets in the far east.

Ireland has much the same problems as in the UK. The difference is,
the Irish government had the courage to take the same tough decisions
that are desperately needed here, but which our cowardly, negligent
and utterly dishonest Prime Minister has repeatedly shied away from.

Huge
wibbled on Friday 11 December 2009 12:39

On 2009-12-11, Tim W wrote:

My proposal would encourage, I believe, better and more productive (on
average) behaviour.

Good luck.


Better idea? Because what we have sure isn't working.


--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:07:37 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Bruce wrote:

Time for another coffee, this time with brandy. ;-)

If I pay the government my £5k cheque, will they let me off taxes in future?


No.

I recommend the brandy, though. It's a fine Calvados. ;-)

Huge
wibbled on Friday 11 December 2009 12:53

On 2009-12-11, Tim W wrote:
Huge
wibbled on Friday 11 December 2009 12:39

On 2009-12-11, Tim W wrote:

My proposal would encourage, I believe, better and more productive (on
average) behaviour.

Good luck.


Better idea? Because what we have sure isn't working.

Did you watch Andrew Marr's History of Modern Britain? You only have
to look back a couple of generations to see that what we have patently
*is* working.

Damn. I have a great respect for Marr - but it's no longer available on
iplayer...

And given the choice between this and a planned economy,
I'll take this *every* time.


I'll have to reserve judgement, save to say it depends a lot on who's doing
the planning, which seems to be our major weakpoint.


--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

Huge
wibbled on Friday 11 December 2009 14:57


I don't think it matters who's in charge. They all either start out as
scum or turn into scum.

What we need to do is stop privatising the profits and socialising the
losses of industries. What we have at the moment isn't capitalism, it's
State funded corporatism. One of the best things the Government could do,
IMO, is make sure there's no such thing as a company "too big to fail". If
they're too big to fail, they're too big. Banks should be split into
"traditional" and "investment" and if the latter fail, they should be
allowed to go to the wall.


Agree 100% with all your statements!


--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:07:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bruce wrote:
To give an idea of what must happen here, regardless of which party is
in government, just look at what the Irish have had to do. At least
the Irish have had the courage to (1) admit how bad things are and
(2) actually *do something* about it. Here, Labour have done neither.
The Republic of Ireland is a prime example of an economy based near
entirely on the property boom.

No, based on exports.


Dave Plowman is right. Irish "wealth" has been entirely based on a
property asset bubble, backed by risky deals in the financial services
sector which have come unstuck.
#
Oh well. Might as well cancel my FT subsrciption and listen to you guys

"Ireland is an ultra-open economy. Compared with its neighbours in the
UK, domestic demand is unimportant. Competitiveness is what matters.
Being bound into the eurozone and unable to devalue its currency, the
only way to give its goods an advantage is to cut wages in nominal
terms, as Mr Lenihan has done."



Irish manufacturing has been in decline for a few years now as
companies like Dell and Apple source components and assemblies from
cheaper markets in the far east.

Ireland has much the same problems as in the UK. The difference is,
the Irish government had the courage to take the same tough decisions
that are desperately needed here, but which our cowardly, negligent
and utterly dishonest Prime Minister has repeatedly shied away from.

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:06:38 +0000 The Natural Philosopher wrote :
Frankly, given that all I have is savings, Id rather be in the Eurozone..

No you need to be in Australia - get up to 7% on term accounts

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on' Melbourne, Australia
www.superbeam.co.uk www.superbeam.com www.greentram.com

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave Plowman is right. Irish "wealth" has been entirely based on a
property asset bubble, backed by risky deals in the financial services
sector which have come unstuck.
#
Oh well. Might as well cancel my FT subsrciption and listen to you guys

"Ireland is an ultra-open economy. Compared with its neighbours in the
UK, domestic demand is unimportant. Competitiveness is what matters.
Being bound into the eurozone and unable to devalue its currency, the
only way to give its goods an advantage is to cut wages in nominal
terms, as Mr Lenihan has done."

Cutting the wages of dustmen, etc? Do they export their rubbish?

--
*If you ate pasta and anti-pasta, would you still be hungry?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:41:23 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

*If you ate pasta and anti-pasta, would you still be hungry?

Very probably, but isn't it 'antipasti' ?

Actually I'm pretty peckish just now... :-)

--
Frank Erskine

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Bruce
saying something like:

Irish manufacturing has been in decline for a few years now as
companies like Dell and Apple source components and assemblies from
cheaper markets in the far east.

For the past decade, the odd few companies have been quietly shutting up
shop and moving to Poland, Czech, etc, where wages and the total cost of
manufacturing is at most a half of being in Ireland. Last year, many
more followed.
Government income from property deals amounted to damn near a third of
the total take - utter lunacy. Anyone who tried to sound a warning bell
over the past ten years or so was shouted down and told to shut the ****
up. Much the same as in the UK, in that respect.
Talk about building houses on sand, or flood plains, to be more topical.

Frank Erskine wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:41:23 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

*If you ate pasta and anti-pasta, would you still be hungry?

Very probably, but isn't it 'antipasti' ?

Actually I'm pretty peckish just now... :-)

Make yourself a bacon sarnie.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Tim W wrote:
sm_jamieson
wibbled on Friday 11 December 2009 09:27


But others would rise to fill the gap (i.e. the next generation of
graduates etc). You could drop their pay to the level of say double
the top surgeons, say 50% of salary max performance bonuses, and it
would still be one of the most lucrative careers around.
Simon.

I don't care what anyone thinks or how we got here. No-one in normal
employment can possibly be "worth" more than a top surgeon. Years of
intense training, jobs where you could be on for 12 hours straight
and a mistake could have you explaining to the relatives and yourself
why someone is dead who should be alive.

Paramedic in London has a basic salary of £19K. Go figure.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Tim W
writes

OK, I'm aware that traders burn out fast and have little life
outside of work, but that still doesn't justify the obscene
payments. It means IMO that the system is rotten to the core. There
is no reason that investment banking has to be run at such a frantic
pace - it comes back to my point about lack of long termism and
speculation. If we banned speculation and encouraged a long term view,
the banking
geniuses would have normal lives, wouldn't burn out, would still be
doing what they do when they are 50 with the benefit of wisdom that
age and experience brings and the world would be a better place.

Yes but, how?

Elsewhere I whinged about commodity trading being a siphon on any
profit made from growing crops. I was smartly put down on the basis
that it provides certainty to the market.

Once an organisation has issued tradable shares it is open to the
whims of the whiz kid investors.

Therein lies the problem. The original concept of shares was to encourage
investment to grow a business. It has been prostituted into the concept of
trading in shares.

If we made a simple rule that if you bought shares, you could not sell them
for a year, speculation would end and investment would take over.

Very simple really.



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:07:37 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Bruce wrote:

Time for another coffee, this time with brandy. ;-)

If I pay the government my £5k cheque, will they let me off taxes in
future?


No.

I recommend the brandy, though. It's a fine Calvados. ;-)

Calvados! Now I know what to ask Santa for!


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

In message , Tony Bryer
writes
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:06:38 +0000 The Natural Philosopher wrote :
Frankly, given that all I have is savings, Id rather be in the Eurozone..

No you need to be in Australia - get up to 7% on term accounts

Or farm. CAP support payments are in calculated in Euros and can be
claimed as such:-)

regards


--
Tim Lamb

The Medway Handyman
wibbled on Saturday 12 December 2009 01:56

Paramedic in London has a basic salary of �19K. Go figure.



It's because we value important jobs so highly.


Yes, that's deep sarcasm.



--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 10:30:47 +0000, Tim W wrote:

The Medway Handyman
wibbled on Saturday 12 December 2009 01:56

Paramedic in London has a basic salary of �19K. Go figure.


It's because we value important jobs so highly.

Yes, that's deep sarcasm.

Humph! After Jill Dando was killed, a report mentioned her salary - it was
roughly 20x that of my girl-friend's, but a Senior Registrar, A&E, doesn't
have the skills and training that JD had.
--
Peter.
The head of a pin will hold more angels if
it's been flattened with an angel-grinder.

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 10:37:17 +0000, Tim W wrote:
The Medway Handyman
wibbled on Saturday 12 December 2009 02:05


Therein lies the problem. The original concept of shares was to encourage
investment to grow a business. It has been prostituted into the concept
of trading in shares.

If we made a simple rule that if you bought shares, you could not sell
them for a year, speculation would end and investment would take over.

Very simple really.


I'd back that.

Anyway, it wouldn't kill the banking and trading sector. They'd adapt like
everyone else when big changes happen. The whole emphasis would change from
employing loud confident young chancers[1], to looking for high calibre
graduates who will be trained to research, consider, study and invest for
the long term good.

I think you're being a little optimistic here. AFAICS the basic problem is
that bankers are more intelligent than politicians and more motivated to
find ways to stop the politicos seperating them from the money. So they are
much more able to find loopholes and ways round legislation than the gummint
is to write tight, unambiguous, targetted laws that won't have any undesirable
consequences.

I'd suggest a world-wide banker's license. To work with other people's money
you'd need a ticket - which anyone could qualify for (well, nearly everyone:
convicted criminals should probably be excluded). However if you were associated
with improprietry the license would be revoked, thereby excluding you from
a job in the financial sector either in your "home" country or anywhere else.

On 11/12/2009 12:38, Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:07:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:
To give an idea of what must happen here, regardless of which party is
in government, just look at what the Irish have had to do. At least
the Irish have had the courage to (1) admit how bad things are and
(2) actually *do something* about it. Here, Labour have done neither.

The Republic of Ireland is a prime example of an economy based near
entirely on the property boom.

No, based on exports.


Dave Plowman is right. Irish "wealth" has been entirely based on a
property asset bubble, backed by risky deals in the financial services
sector which have come unstuck.


Well, it is/was 'based on' EU grants and a business favourable taxation
system. As others have said, the dependency on footloose fair weather
global business has its downside when somewhere cheaper comes along
(wages went up, after all), and/or demand drops.


Irish manufacturing has been in decline for a few years now as
companies like Dell and Apple source components and assemblies from
cheaper markets in the far east.

Ireland has much the same problems as in the UK. The difference is,
the Irish government had the courage to take the same tough decisions
that are desperately needed here, but which our cowardly, negligent
and utterly dishonest Prime Minister has repeatedly shied away from.


Such as? All they seem to be *doing* is relying on a notion of the
'plucky Irish' to bail out banks.

Rob

On Dec 10, 7:55*pm, Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:10:15 +0000 (UTC),



(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:
In article ,
* *Bruce writes:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:07:36 +0000, Tim W wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8406670.stm

[ "Captain" Darling short of 36 billion ]

And I thought my housekeeping was bad!

Anyone see the last episode of Spooks where the country is about to go
formally bankrupt and Roz saves the day by getting medieval on some gangsta-
banker's ass? Makes you wonder...

They could save 1.5 billion by taking the top layer of the RBS investment
banking arm outside and putting them on community service for 2 years.

I fully understand people's anger at the bankers, but what I don't
understand is where the same people think the wealth and taxes are
going to come from to get the UK out of this recession.

When "New" Labour came to power, 20% of the UK's GDP came from
manufacturing. *That is now down to 11%. *The importance of the City
of London and its investment bankers is therefore even greater now
than ever before.

Yes, I don't understand this either. The City provides something
between 28% and 33% of the Treasury's annual income, and is one
of the world's top 3 financial centres. OK, they screwed up, but
closing down that sector is just chucking the baby out with the
bathwater, and permanent loss of that revenue stream leaves us
far more screwed than we already are.

Most of the shortfall in Corporation Tax receipts - by far the biggest
hole in Captain Darling's rapidly sinking ship - is a result of the
slump in profits from banking and insurance. *So however much we hate
the bankers, unless the financial sector gets its arse back into gear
double quick, we may be in for a long and very painful recession.

Quite. Requiring financial institutions to maintain capital
reserves at a level to match their risk taking (which is being
done) seemed like a good way to mitigate the risk. Launching a
witch hunt is just pandering to the masses for retribution,
which can only do tremendous damage (because the masses don't
actually know what the City does).

Exactly. *

The masses don't understand a lot of things, not just the City. *

For example, they say they don't "believe in" climate change, as if it
was no more than an issue of personal religious faith, and you could
choose whether to believe it or not. *That's like saying you don't
"believe in" income tax, or heart disease.

Climate change is very real and has always been. Man made climate
change is the new religion.

AGW

In article ,
Huge wrote:
Not sure about GDP, but IIRC the City pays about 13% of the taxes in
this country.

And of course, the top 10% of tax-payers pay over 50% of the income
taxes.

So driving them and their employers out of the country is cutting off
ones nose to spite ones face.

That begs the question that they would be happy to live anywhere in the
world - assuming the money is good.

--
*'Progress' and 'Change' are not synonyms.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Dec 10, 7:13*pm, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:
Tim W wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8406670.stm

[ "Captain" Darling short of 36 billion ]

And I thought my housekeeping was bad!

It makes one wonder if the current global warming scare is designed to
divert attention away from the economy?

No apologies for repeating this.

HL Mencken "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the
populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

The old demon of communism has gone, so they had to find something
else.

MBQ

On Dec 11, 11:07*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:41:50 +0000 (UTC),
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:

In article ,
* * * *Bruce writes:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:46:13 GMT, "Phil L"
wrote:

Tim W wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8406670.stm

[ "Captain" Darling short of 36 billion ]

And I thought my housekeeping was bad!

Anyone see the last episode of Spooks where the country is about to go
formally bankrupt and Roz saves the day by getting medieval on some
gangsta- banker's ass? Makes you wonder...

They could save 1.5 billion by taking the top layer of the RBS
investment banking arm outside and putting them on community service
for 2 years.
So unless we all pay this 36bn in taxes, he ain't gonna balance his books? -
unless he has another source of income we don't know about?

36,000,000,000, split between about 36m taxpayers, means we all owe the ****
a grand
That's in addition to the several grand each we already owe him for
rescuing the banks.
I think it's currently £171B, so that's about £5k each.

A frightening thought. *

Time for another coffee, this time with brandy. *;-)

If I pay the government my £5k cheque, will they let me off taxes in future?

You'll fall in the "able to pay" bracket and be charged at least
double.

MBQ

On Dec 11, 11:38*am, (Andrew Gabriel)
wrote:
In article ,
* * * * Bruce writes:



On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:41:50 +0000 (UTC),
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:

In article ,
* * * *Bruce writes:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:46:13 GMT, "Phil L"
wrote:

So unless we all pay this 36bn in taxes, he ain't gonna balance his books? -
unless he has another source of income we don't know about?

36,000,000,000, split between about 36m taxpayers, means we all owe the ****
a grand

That's in addition to the several grand each we already owe him for
rescuing the banks.

I think it's currently £171B, so that's about £5k each.

A frightening thought. *

Time for another coffee, this time with brandy. *;-)

My personal view on debt it to pay it off ASAP, save on interest
payments, and get it over and done with. Knocked 10 years off
my first mortgage that way (saving myself thousands), and I've
been doing the same with my second mortgage when I can afford to.
Even a tiny overpayment makes an enormous difference (first make
sure your mortgage is not one that penalises overpayments though).

Given we're all effectively going to have to pay that £5k each
above and beyond our existing taxes, it would be nice to have an
option to do it early, and bow out of the long term (and much
more expensive option) of spreading it over many years of high
taxes, not to mention that makes it cheaper for the whole country
too and gets us back into a recovery position.

Agreed, but for those able to pay it will be a hell of a lot more than
£5k to subsidise those who can't pay.

MBQ

Man at B&Q wrote:
On Dec 11, 11:07 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

If I pay the government my £5k cheque, will they let me off taxes in future?

You'll fall in the "able to pay" bracket and be charged at least
double.


Ah the old socialist 'I have money, rob me' story.

MBQ

Man at B&Q wrote:
Climate change is very real and has always been. Man made climate
change is the new religion.

I don't see that it's impossible to have a religion grounded
in reliable scientific predictions. Perhaps you need a new
turn of phrase?

#Paul

Man at B&Q wrote:

snip

Climate change is very real and has always been. Man made climate
change is the new religion.

You wish. In reality those who deny that man is having any effect on the
climate are those who practise a new religion.

On Dec 16, 12:08*pm, wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:

Climate change is very real and has always been. Man made climate
change is the new religion.

I don't see that it's impossible to have a religion grounded
in reliable scientific predictions. *

Indeed.

Perhaps you need a new
turn of phrase?

No. It's a religion in the sense of here's the truth, disbelievers
will not be tolerated.

MBQ

Man at B&Q wrote:
On Dec 16, 12:08*pm, wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:

Climate change is very real and has always been. Man made climate
change is the new religion.

I don't see that it's impossible to have a religion grounded
in reliable scientific predictions. *

Indeed.

Perhaps you need a new turn of phrase?

No. It's a religion in the sense of here's the truth, disbelievers
will not be tolerated.

In this hypothetical case where disbelievers are _actually_ wrong
(or as close to wrongness as science allows), why should an
interminable _public_ repetition of inaccurate views remain unopposed?
Especially if they keep repeating their nonsense ad nauseum, are
unable to come up with well argued scientific arguments or demonstrate
any technical knowledege -- and persist in misinforming others on a
matter of considerable importance?



#Paul

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
There is no way that he should have been allowed to hedge my grand in
RBS against any investments.

Is that not exactly what building socs. have done as a primary MO for
years though - and it be considered a "good thing"?

Genuine BS loaned against bricks and mortar as valued by their
professionals. And required proof of income. Once you lessen those
requirements, you're gambling.

--
*Don't byte off more than you can view *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

John Rumm
wibbled on Thursday 17 December 2009 09:16

Tim W wrote:

There is no way that he should have been allowed to hedge my grand in RBS
against any investments.

Is that not exactly what building socs. have done as a primary MO for
years though - and it be considered a "good thing"?

OK - I'll give you that John. But with the caveat that back in those days,
the lenders were a bit more careful about who they were lending to (7x
salary multipliers - no way Jose!) and the mortgages were mostly on UK
properties so that gave the lender some level of confidence in the value of
the assets. Simple self contained business model, open and reasonably
transparent - much easier to manage.

OK, so house prices can still rise and fall, but not so much I'd wager as to
bankrupt a lender.

It's the ill checked multilayered investments I object to (many of the
subprime packages were basically a ball of ****e dipped in candy and painted
pretty colours, and the other speculative investments that are effectively
playing poker.

It is those that should be well and truley decoupled from peoples' pensions
and savings.

Secondly, the banks must have been not doing their job to even start
buying into the sub prime stuff. Does no one look into these things?

In many cases it seems that they were not as aware as they might have
hoped that they were. The packagers of these products had been very
crafty in the way they managed to mix some of these higher risk debts
into seemingly lower risk investment packages.

Given that there are a high proportion of weasels in that arena, all the
more reason for decoupling.

The other thing that also seems a bit odd, it that everyone talks as if
this so called toxic debt will never be repaid. In reality a proportion
of it will be (a lower proportion than would be expected in the general
borrowing populous - but that is why the sub prime borrowers are doing
so on less attractive terms), but never the less that does not amount to
a write off.

Goodwin should have been fired in disgrace, not bribed off into early
retirement. There are a lot of staff in my local branch who are not happy
with the way he has sullied the bank's name and ruined its standing.

He did seem to get off rather lightly!


Surprised he only got his windows bricked...

I have to do a tax return soon where I know I will end up writing a cheque
for 400 quid. OK, it's not much, but it galls me to think that some tosser
in the city will probably end up spending it on a lapdancing evening for
himself.

--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

In message , Tim W
writes

It's the ill checked multilayered investments I object to (many of the
subprime packages were basically a ball of ****e dipped in candy and painted
pretty colours, and the other speculative investments that are effectively
playing poker.

It is those that should be well and truley decoupled from peoples' pensions
and savings.

Quite!

Can someone kindly give me an explanation of derivatives? Preferably in
plain English:-)

I think I have grasped the principle of *short selling* and stock
lending.

regards

--
Tim Lamb

wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
Climate change is very real and has always been. Man made climate
change is the new religion.

I don't see that it's impossible to have a religion grounded
in reliable scientific predictions. Perhaps you need a new
turn of phrase?


I am not sure you can, actually.

Religions by their very nature are metaphysical propositions, and
science, although it resist on one, is not in itself a metaphysical
proposition.


That is to say, science is the investigation of the rational
materialistic worldview.

Religion is the adoption of a different world view, and theology, the
investigation of it.



#Paul