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.

--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

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.

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.

Perhaps putting them on community service is not such a good idea?

In article ,
Bruce wrote:

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.

The very same who got us in this mess? Throw them out and get some new
ones in.

--
*Why isn't 11 pronounced onety one? *

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

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).

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:49:37 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Bruce wrote:

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.

The very same who got us in this mess? Throw them out and get some new
ones in.


Although it grieves me to say it, our economy is more than ever
dependent on these people, and we will never get out of recession
without a healthy financial sector.

Throw them out? It's like electing a "new" government only to find
out that they are even worse than the last lot.

Or wanting rid of a lying, warmongering Prime Minister only to find
him replaced with an even more incompetent "clunking great fist".

Such is life.

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?

Foil hats on.


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

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:24:07 +0000, Bruce
wrote:

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.


I don't think we've even scraped the surface of this recession. The
wealth they constantly blather on about is all lies. Debt is wealth.
War is peace. it's sometimes like falling into the pages of 1984.
--
http://www.Christmasfreebies.co.uk
http://www.holidayunder100.co.uk

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:02:05 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:
Bruce wrote:
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.

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.

Perhaps putting them on community service is not such a good idea?

Not only that, many of the so called "bonuses" were tied to a percentage
of the profits made by the banks. Profits which the exchequer will no
doubt have a much larger slice out of than the bankers will in bonus
payments.


With the bankers, we were doomed. But without them, things would be
even worse. :-(


You also have to marvel at the government's policy of "quantitative
easing" - basically having the bank of England buy up huge quantities of
gilts. Shame no one ever taught the chancellor some basic economics. You
put a huge demand on something, and then back that with government (i.e.
our) cash, and the price is going to go up. So the investment bankers do
what investment bankers do best when they see a sure thing that is only
going to go up in value. The govt then acts all surprised when they end
up trousering the money they are pumping out! Where else did they think
it was going to go?

Still the real **** will hit the fan if we lose our AAA credit rating!


In the old days, "quantitative easing" was more accurately described
as "printing money".

Bruce
wibbled on Thursday 10 December 2009 18:24



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.

I think the emphasis is on the wrong part. What can we do to increase
manufacturing, where something useful is created and sold? Or providing
tangible services for sale?

I don't have much sympathy for the idea that investment banking is a "good
thing" - when you pare it down, they are basically leeches, living off
others.

--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

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.

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:13:46 +0000, mogga
wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:24:07 +0000, Bruce
wrote:
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.


I don't think we've even scraped the surface of this recession.


"New" Labour haven't even admitted to themselves just how bad it is.
They are continuing to spend money that we don't have in the hope that
the electorate doesn't realise just how bad things are before the
General Election.

After the Election, it doesn't matter which party is in power, there
will have to be massive cuts in public spending and tax increases. No
other industrialised country is in as bad a state as the UK; all our
competitors are already out of recession and their economies have
begun to grow, albeit slowly.

Meanwhile, we are still in the deepest recession in our history and
Labour is spending as though nothing has happened.

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.

http://tinyurl.com/ye5hzjo
or
http://www.independent.ie/national-n...l-1969527.html

John Rumm
wibbled on Thursday 10 December 2009 19:36

Tim W wrote:
Bruce
wibbled on Thursday 10 December 2009 18:24


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.

I think the emphasis is on the wrong part. What can we do to increase
manufacturing, where something useful is created and sold? Or providing
tangible services for sale?

Manufacturing is all well and good if either you limit that
manufacturing to very high tech, limited market, specialist kit that
will command very high prices, or your workforce are prepared to be paid
at a level comparable with those in India, China etc. Given the latter
is not going to happen, that only leaves the former, and by its very
definition its not mass market (i.e. high volume) stuff.

I agree with the high and low end cases, but what about higher end consumer
goods, for example?

Our GDP by sector is around 24% manufacturing:

http://www.indexmundi.com/united_kin...by_sector.html

Germany and Switzerland are 30% and 34% respectively.

I'm thinking about the upper end Bosch, Miele and the like. We have those
sectors, but I wouldn't buy white goods made by us. There's definately room
for improvements in general attitude towards quality and better market
share. 6 and 10% may not seem a huge difference but it's not insignificant.

We seem to have all but given up trying to make good quality consumer goods
here - and as Germany manage to very sucessfully, I don't see why we *have
to* loose out to the far east on this one.

I don't have much sympathy for the idea that investment banking is a
"good thing" - when you pare it down, they are basically leeches, living
off others.

True, but could the "others" function without someone prepared to make
the investment?


Up to a point. Long term investment is very important. Speculation in any
form is basically pillage though.

But how to build an investment market for the long term, especially when
politicians are generally allergic to anything more than 2-3 years into the
future...

Cheers

Tim

--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:13:05 +0000, Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:49:37 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Bruce wrote:

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.

The very same who got us in this mess? Throw them out and get some new
ones in.


Although it grieves me to say it, our economy is more than ever
dependent on these people, and we will never get out of recession
without a healthy financial sector.

Throw them out? It's like electing a "new" government only to find
out that they are even worse than the last lot.

Yes exactly. Banking is the new North Sea Oil and the effect it has had on
the UK for the past decade is vast. Without it none of the last 10 year's
boom we've enjoyed (and squandered? again?) would have happened. It's
touching to hear people thinking that one group of bankers is any better
or worse than any others. When it's a pretty good bet that any of them would
have done the same, in the same position. The only difference is the sheer
dumb luck of whether someone worked for a bank that made randomly good
or randomly unlucky bets.

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:20:41 +0000, Tim W wrote:

Bruce
wibbled on Thursday 10 December 2009 18:24



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.

I think the emphasis is on the wrong part. What can we do to increase
manufacturing, where something useful is created and sold? Or providing
tangible services for sale?

I don't have much sympathy for the idea that investment banking is a "good
thing" - when you pare it down, they are basically leeches, living off
others.


.... and investing in companies, including in manufacturing.

Where do manufacturing firms go to when they need to invest in new
capacity? The City.

Like so many people, you blind hatred of bankers also blinds you to
the good that they do. The fact is, the UK has a large financial
services sector that is capable of creating an awful lot of wealth,
employing an awful lot of British people and paying an awful lot of
taxes on their profits.

Why would you wish to damage it? To do so would damage us all.

pete wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:13:05 +0000, Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:49:37 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Bruce wrote:

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.
The very same who got us in this mess? Throw them out and get some new
ones in.

Although it grieves me to say it, our economy is more than ever
dependent on these people, and we will never get out of recession
without a healthy financial sector.

Throw them out? It's like electing a "new" government only to find
out that they are even worse than the last lot.

Yes exactly. Banking is the new North Sea Oil and the effect it has had on
the UK for the past decade is vast. Without it none of the last 10 year's
boom we've enjoyed (and squandered? again?) would have happened. It's
touching to hear people thinking that one group of bankers is any better
or worse than any others. When it's a pretty good bet that any of them would
have done the same, in the same position. The only difference is the sheer
dumb luck of whether someone worked for a bank that made randomly good
or randomly unlucky bets.


No: there were banks of quality that steered clear of high leverage -
HSBC most notably- and toxic assets.

Barclays may have got away by the skin of their teeth. Lloyds might have
made it if they hadn't rushed into HBOS.

Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:20:41 +0000, Tim W wrote:

Bruce
wibbled on Thursday 10 December 2009 18:24


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.
I think the emphasis is on the wrong part. What can we do to increase
manufacturing, where something useful is created and sold? Or providing
tangible services for sale?

I don't have much sympathy for the idea that investment banking is a "good
thing" - when you pare it down, they are basically leeches, living off
others.


... and investing in companies, including in manufacturing.

Where do manufacturing firms go to when they need to invest in new
capacity? The City.


But not banks, typically. Private equity firms mainly.

Banks are where INDIVIDUALS go for loans, by and large. Or other banks.
Via LIBOR etc.


Like so many people, you blind hatred of bankers also blinds you to
the good that they do. The fact is, the UK has a large financial
services sector that is capable of creating an awful lot of wealth,
employing an awful lot of British people and paying an awful lot of
taxes on their profits.

Why would you wish to damage it? To do so would damage us all.


You don't know enough about how the financial system works mate. Most of
it could be run by far less well paid people, probably better, with a
decent set of rules. High st banking especially.

There is absolutely no moral justification for using depositors money to
play poker with.

In article ,
John Rumm writes:
Tim W wrote:
Bruce
wibbled on Thursday 10 December 2009 18:24


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.

I think the emphasis is on the wrong part. What can we do to increase
manufacturing, where something useful is created and sold? Or providing
tangible services for sale?

Manufacturing is all well and good if either you limit that
manufacturing to very high tech, limited market, specialist kit that
will command very high prices, or your workforce are prepared to be paid
at a level comparable with those in India, China etc. Given the latter
is not going to happen, that only leaves the former, and by its very
definition its not mass market (i.e. high volume) stuff.

Our education system has produced fewer and fewer of the high fliers
required for high tech development/manufacturing over the last 20
years, whilst India and more recently China has been making enormous
improvements in the volumes of such graduates they are producing.
Secondly, industries today are less inclined to take a new graduate
and invest two years before expecting them to start paying back,
which was the norm 25 years ago. With that industry shrinking, it's
unlikely the new graduate will still be there in two years time.
What this means is that if you look at many of our high tech
industries, the technical workforce is getting older and older, as
they can't find new talent to enter at the bottom, and they are
having to look at moving this work offshore. You can't wind down UK
industry over 25 years, and then expect to flick a switch to turn it
back on. Even if we could somehow change our kids education and their
attitude to it overnight (which we can't), in 10 years time, we'll
start seeing the type of graduates appearing who are needed to get
a UK high tech industry working again. I just can't see that happening
though, but I really wish I could.

I don't have much sympathy for the idea that investment banking is a "good
thing" - when you pare it down, they are basically leeches, living off
others.

True, but could the "others" function without someone prepared to make
the investment?

It accounts for a very significant part of our GDP; Services is now
about 75% of our GDP. You might well think that's not healthy, but
killing it is a disaster.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:35:02 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Bruce wrote:
Like so many people, you blind hatred of bankers also blinds you to
the good that they do. The fact is, the UK has a large financial
services sector that is capable of creating an awful lot of wealth,
employing an awful lot of British people and paying an awful lot of
taxes on their profits.

Why would you wish to damage it? To do so would damage us all.


You don't know enough about how the financial system works mate.



If the following is anything to go by, you know even less, and much of
what you think you know is wrong.


Most of
it could be run by far less well paid people, probably better, with a
decent set of rules. High st banking especially.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

Andrew Gabriel
wibbled on Thursday 10 December 2009 20:36

You can't wind down UK
industry over 25 years, and then expect to flick a switch to turn it
back on. Even if we could somehow change our kids education and their
attitude to it overnight (which we can't), in 10 years time, we'll
start seeing the type of graduates appearing who are needed to get
a UK high tech industry working again. I just can't see that happening
though, but I really wish I could.

OK - *I* think this could be addressed by massive government schemes to kick
start the old graduate and apprenticeship schemes - I essence give big tech
companies monetary incentives to run such schemes. Many of those existed
through nationalised industries. If one doesn't wish to renationalise what
industry there is left, then this would seem to me to be a perfectly
reasonable approach.

You could do a lot of long term good with the sort of dosh (our dosh) that
the government is flinging at the banking sector.

The rewards would not be instant - indeed, it would take years for the
schemes to stabilise, a few more years for the currently ambitious kids to
come out the end and many more years to show the rest of the next generation
that it *is* worth being an educated person.

So we should start now, or it will never happen...




--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...)

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

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.

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:09:32 +0000 Bruce wrote :
"New" Labour haven't even admitted to themselves just how bad it is.
They are continuing to spend money that we don't have in the hope that
the electorate doesn't realise just how bad things are before the
General Election.

There's a running poll on the state of the UK economy. It's called the
exchange rate. It really hurts me since I earn in sterling and spend
Aussie dollars, so for me the same sales as a year ago = 25% pay cut. But
what is noticeable is the vastly more important £:US$ rate, now at 1.627,
having been at 1.375 earlier this year with wild claims that it would end
up at 1:1 (IIRC it all but got there in Mrs T's time)

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

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:39:01 +1100, Tony Bryer
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:09:32 +0000 Bruce wrote :
"New" Labour haven't even admitted to themselves just how bad it is.
They are continuing to spend money that we don't have in the hope that
the electorate doesn't realise just how bad things are before the
General Election.

There's a running poll on the state of the UK economy. It's called the
exchange rate. It really hurts me since I earn in sterling and spend
Aussie dollars, so for me the same sales as a year ago = 25% pay cut. But
what is noticeable is the vastly more important £:US$ rate, now at 1.627,
having been at 1.375 earlier this year with wild claims that it would end
up at 1:1 (IIRC it all but got there in Mrs T's time)


Of course there is a high risk of a run on the pound. It is in a
honeymoon period at the moment.

Watch it drop like a stone if the UK's credit rating is lowered.
Several debt rating agencies have warned of this in recent weeks.

Can you change the currency you are paid in?

In message , The Medway
Handyman wrote

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

No, it's only there to soften people up to accepting "green" taxation.

--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 10 Dec, 20:35, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:20:41 +0000, Tim W wrote:

Bruce
*wibbled on Thursday 10 December 2009 18:24

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.
I think the emphasis is on the wrong part. What can we do to increase
manufacturing, where something useful is created and sold? Or providing
tangible services for sale?

I don't have much sympathy for the idea that investment banking is a "good
thing" - when you pare it down, they are basically leeches, living off
others.

... and investing in companies, including in manufacturing.

Where do manufacturing firms go to when they need to invest in new
capacity? *The City.

But not banks, typically. Private equity firms mainly.

Banks are where INDIVIDUALS go for loans, by and large. Or other banks.
Via LIBOR etc.

Like so many people, you blind hatred of bankers also blinds you to
the good that they do. *The fact is, the UK has a large financial
services sector that is capable of creating an awful lot of wealth,
employing an awful lot of British people and paying an awful lot of
taxes on their profits. *

Why would you wish to damage it? *To do so would damage us all.

You don't know enough about how the financial system works mate. Most of
it could be run by far less well paid people, probably better, with a
decent set of rules. High st banking especially.

There is absolutely no moral justification for using depositors money to
play poker with.

I would like to hear someone explain exactly what the unique skills
are that get the investment bankers paid so much. This has never been
properly explained. There must be a shortage (possibly engineered) of
capable persons in order for capitalism to produce such wages. There
is an argument that the most highly paid are simply the most lucky,
which perhaps means the shortage is due to most people being risk
averse.
Also, in order to clamp down on their pay properly you would need a
**worldwide watertight decision** covering all financial jobs. So they
could not go somewhere else, or even threaten to. Of course there is a
risk that the most wealthy would simply stop work altogether !
You would also need to make them bear the pain of their gambles, so
there is not only an upside. So a bonus for profit maybe, but a fine
for losses.
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.

On 10 Dec, 23:39, Tony Bryer wrote:

There's a running poll on the state of the UK economy. It's called the
exchange rate. It really hurts me since I earn in sterling and spend
Aussie dollars, so for me the same sales as a year ago = 25% pay cut. But
what is noticeable is the vastly more important :US$ rate, now at 1.627,
having been at 1.375 earlier this year with wild claims that it would end
up at 1:1 (IIRC it all but got there in Mrs T's time)

It could be argued that the EUR rate is more important these days, and
the poor state of that tells a very clear story.

Neil

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.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

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.

Your 2x is therefore quite generous IMHO.

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.

Companies would still have means for investment, it would simply be based on
rational long term decisions. No more dot-com events.


--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:34:15 -0800 (PST), Neil Williams
wrote:

On 10 Dec, 23:39, Tony Bryer wrote:

There's a running poll on the state of the UK economy. It's called the
exchange rate. It really hurts me since I earn in sterling and spend
Aussie dollars, so for me the same sales as a year ago = 25% pay cut. But
what is noticeable is the vastly more important :US$ rate, now at 1.627,
having been at 1.375 earlier this year with wild claims that it would end
up at 1:1 (IIRC it all but got there in Mrs T's time)

It could be argued that the EUR rate is more important these days, and
the poor state of that tells a very clear story.


The story it tells is that the European Central Bank has kept interest
rates too high for too long. Several states in the Eurozone are in
desperate trouble because they cannot devalue their currency, as they
no longer have one of their own. They are locked into a high Euro
policy that might suit Germany and France and their satellites, but
not countries with severe economic problems.

Devaluation is one of the main tools to be used in the case of a
severe recession. The economies of Greece, Spain, Portugal and
Ireland (the most problematic, but there are others) are in desperate
trouble because of an inability to devalue.

Had the UK joined the Euro we would now be staring disaster in the
face. We should be thankful that we have our own currency, and that
it has devalued against just about everything except the US Dollar,
otherwise the desperate situation we are now facing would be many
times worse.

On 11 Dec, 09:55, 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.

Your 2x is therefore quite generous IMHO.

I agree.


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.
But what are their skills ?
Lots of people work long overtime.
There is a good analogy to football players. They get paid similar
amounts. There are a few top stars. They have shown their skill on
front of peoples eyes, and as soon a Sky money arrived, there was in
effect an auction and the stars got paid the maximum possible to
achieve winning teams.

Do investment bankers have similar rare skills ?
Why is the market not flooded with millions of graduates all with the
same skill, that would bring down the pay scales ?


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.

I thought this was to happen, by having deferred bonuses and payment
in shares that must be held, but then one of the banks set up a
facility to enable the share bonuses to be cashed in right away. Why
was this not foreseen by the government ?

The 50 year olds are often from the old banking world and in awe of
their top financial "stars" who apparently can take their clients with
them if they move company. So a top star leaving can do a lot of
damage to a company.

As you say, the whole thing is a horrible mess. The profits made in
the current artificial financial climate are NOT due to additional
skill or hard work of the bankers, but they are trying to take bonuses
as if they are.

And why has nobody challenged how the "profits" are measured, against
which the bonuses are made. If I take out a massive loan and have a
million in my bank, have I made a profit of one million ? If its
hidden in "assets", has the situation changed. This is part of the
real problem. What in fact is genuine wealth creation ?

Simon.

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. ;-)

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.

--
*You can't teach an old mouse new clicks *

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

sm_jamieson wrote:
On 10 Dec, 20:35, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:20:41 +0000, Tim W wrote:
Bruce
wibbled on Thursday 10 December 2009 18:24
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.
I think the emphasis is on the wrong part. What can we do to increase
manufacturing, where something useful is created and sold? Or providing
tangible services for sale?
I don't have much sympathy for the idea that investment banking is a "good
thing" - when you pare it down, they are basically leeches, living off
others.
... and investing in companies, including in manufacturing.
Where do manufacturing firms go to when they need to invest in new
capacity? The City.
But not banks, typically. Private equity firms mainly.

Banks are where INDIVIDUALS go for loans, by and large. Or other banks.
Via LIBOR etc.

Like so many people, you blind hatred of bankers also blinds you to
the good that they do. The fact is, the UK has a large financial
services sector that is capable of creating an awful lot of wealth,
employing an awful lot of British people and paying an awful lot of
taxes on their profits.
Why would you wish to damage it? To do so would damage us all.
You don't know enough about how the financial system works mate. Most of
it could be run by far less well paid people, probably better, with a
decent set of rules. High st banking especially.

There is absolutely no moral justification for using depositors money to
play poker with.

I would like to hear someone explain exactly what the unique skills
are that get the investment bankers paid so much.

None whatsoever in my experience. Its simply that when you are
negotiating a £300M deal, no one really cares if you take a million out
and put it in your (firms) pocket.

What an investment bank is selling, is access to money, or to people who
have money.

What it's job is, is to know those people, present a case for
investment, which is a lot of tedious analysis which may in fact bear no
relationship to reality whatsoever, and act as a broker, either for its
own, or someone else's money. And take responsibility for managing the
investment or IPO so that the legal issues are squared away, and
everybody involved gets a nice cut.

That's in a typical IPO, investment or M&A activity.

A high street bank is a totally different activity. It only has to
manage money flow, as a million micro transactions on cheques, cards and
transfers, and do the odd mortgage. It was the coupling between the
investment side and the retail side that was so dire. Depositors money -
not INVESTORS money, was used to do investment banking with.


This has never been
properly explained. There must be a shortage (possibly engineered) of
capable persons in order for capitalism to produce such wages. There
is an argument that the most highly paid are simply the most lucky,
which perhaps means the shortage is due to most people being risk
averse.

The price of entry is knowing the right chaps, and being a bit sharp,
but still one of the chaps )(or these days, chappesses).

What a company wants out of its investment bankers, like any other
salesman, is successful profitable sales.

They are no different in principle from a dealer selling crack on a sink
estate. He has to know who to sell to, and who not, and structure the
deal so he doesn't get burned, and see off the opposition by any means
he can get away with, and fix teh market as much as he can to maximise
profit.

The only two differences are the scale and the legality.

Fred the Shred's RBS game was so simply it is barely credible. Borrow
short off the money markets and lend long on mortgages, on the
expectation that the more funds he pumped in, the more people would have
to spend on houses, and the more the asset value of the houses would
rise, thereby securing his asset base.

Simples!

It was only when the sources of credit dried up, because of the sub
prime ********, that the whole thing became exposed.

Now, if ALL he had done was the above, it would have been fine because
his short term creditors would have crashed the bank, and picked up the
mortgages under administration. RBS officials and shareholders would be
left penniless (serves em right)

HOWEVER he had used the banks depositors money as essentially guarantees
on the borrowing he had done, and the way banks are currently
structured, that put all the people who used RBS to keep a few thousand
in, at risk of losing the lot. Hence the bailout.

And Fred doesn't end up president of a bankrupt company and its
shareholders don't end up out of pocket completely: Oh no. Fred walks
off with a few million severance BECAUSE RBS IS NOT OFFICIALLY BUST and
the shares these days are still worth SOMETHING.

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.


Also, in order to clamp down on their pay properly you would need a
**worldwide watertight decision** covering all financial jobs. So they
could not go somewhere else, or even threaten to. Of course there is a
risk that the most wealthy would simply stop work altogether !
You would also need to make them bear the pain of their gambles, so
there is not only an upside. So a bonus for profit maybe, but a fine
for losses.
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.


In a world awash with money, salesmen are always the highest paid. And
marketing men.

Only when people are short of cash do they shop around for quality at
low prices, cut the salesmen out, and place emphasis on those who CAN
produce quality at good prices.

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.

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. I suppose it would be possible to put
an international ban on this sort of trade but what would that leave of
the City? International gambling is OK so long as your gamblers are
better than anyone else's!

regards

--
Tim Lamb

Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:34:15 -0800 (PST), Neil Williams
wrote:

On 10 Dec, 23:39, Tony Bryer wrote:

There's a running poll on the state of the UK economy. It's called the
exchange rate. It really hurts me since I earn in sterling and spend
Aussie dollars, so for me the same sales as a year ago = 25% pay cut. But
what is noticeable is the vastly more important :US$ rate, now at 1.627,
having been at 1.375 earlier this year with wild claims that it would end
up at 1:1 (IIRC it all but got there in Mrs T's time)
It could be argued that the EUR rate is more important these days, and
the poor state of that tells a very clear story.


The story it tells is that the European Central Bank has kept interest
rates too high for too long. Several states in the Eurozone are in
desperate trouble because they cannot devalue their currency, as they
no longer have one of their own. They are locked into a high Euro
policy that might suit Germany and France and their satellites, but
not countries with severe economic problems.

That's why Ireland has devalued its wages. Instead. Slashing the dole
and public sector wages.



Devaluation is one of the main tools to be used in the case of a
severe recession. The economies of Greece, Spain, Portugal and
Ireland (the most problematic, but there are others) are in desperate
trouble because of an inability to devalue.


They must follow Ireland. Finally the cost of socialism in terms of high
public sector employment and high social security payments has to be
made obvious.


Had the UK joined the Euro we would now be staring disaster in the
face. We should be thankful that we have our own currency, and that
it has devalued against just about everything except the US Dollar,
otherwise the desperate situation we are now facing would be many
times worse.


Not really. we would have simply not been able to fudge our way out by
letting inflation take the strain instead of having to implement obvious
cuts. It allows Gordon to pretend he isn't cutting anything, whilst
inflation destroys valeus of savings and take home pay.

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

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?

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.

Huge wrote:
On 2009-12-11, 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?

That was my response, too.

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.

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.


Or at least take out a put option on the share..which amounts to making
a bet, really.

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.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

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?

regards

--
Tim Lamb