This is best approached from the perspective of a shareholder. The trouble is that any holdings I have in these organisations are held through my pension, which is also run by a bunch of people who want to fleece me while I’m not really watching.

🙂

And if the Banks didn’t reward their directors with competitive bonuses, they’d just clear off elsewhere, probably abroad, the British banking industry would lose all it’s talent, and in turn lose the ability to generate money and operate successfully, ultimately a huge loss to the tax revenue… overall, the UK is better off in the long run. in theory. unless the world all goes wrong again.

So basically we are held to ransom by these people.

So you think it’s fine that while we close libraries, cut care for children, the disabled and elderly, sack nurses and police officers, and basically cut anything that makes society a better place, these greedy ***** get richer and richer, for doing their jobs badly, and reaping the rewards from our bailout?

The banks would all be fecked (with the possible exception of HSBC) if it weren’t for the government liquidity guarantees. Whether they were directly bailed out or not, they are all relying on taxpayers for their continued survival. And taking advantage of those tax-payer funded guarantees to a pretty spectacular degree. And in return, all the pathetically meek concessions they made to the government in return for this safety net have been jettisoned with pretty unseemly haste.

So… to summarise our present system:

Socialism for the bankers

Capitalism for the rest of us

Oh, the irony

the British banking industry would lose all it’s talent

That’s funny in itself, talent my arse!!!

Dear me.

So much comprehension FAIL on this thread I can’t quote it all.

1) We need the banks to do what they do. Otherwise our economy’d collapse, as it almost did when they only slightly stopped doing what they do.

2) They can pay their staff what they like

3) Now I am happy to be corrected here but isn’t Investment Banking where they invest your money in stuff to make more for YOU and then take a cut themselves? Which is how they can pay YOU interest and pensions and things? And give YOU credit when you need a house or whatever..? And at the same time giving money to businesses that need credit to start up before they can be successful? To me that’s a valuable contribution to the economy.

4) It’s oh so very easy to bitch about rich people when you’re not one of them. 99.999% of you would do exactly the same thing in the same situation, come on be honest.

5) Let the buggers fail! They brought this on themselves (whilst making money for US as well as themselves). Oh goodie, they’ve all failed, that’ll learn ’em. Wait a minute, where’s our economy gone? Oh sh*t. What do you mean there’s no food in the supermarket?

6) Tax the swine! Come on make them pay! What’s that you say? They’ve all moved their operations to New York? Oh dear, that’s a massive sector of our economy gone. Now we’re quite poor, how ever are we going to run our country now? Maybe Greece or Spain can bail us out?

The system is far far more complicated than any of us understand so there’s really NO POINT AT ALL in coming on here and bitching about it.

Now before you go off on one and call me an evil capitalist, I’m not.

I DO think it’s massively greedy of them, but they are simply human beings and pretty blind when it comes to money – just like you are but the other way round.

I am a socialist. I would love to tax them and see them face up to their moral and social responsibilities but in the current climate it AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN. We would need a global revolution on a scale never before seen.

A second enlightenment.

But we’re not ready for that yet, sadly.

+1 Molgrips
Although I don’t agree with your desire that u would love to tax them!

The system is far far more complicated than any of us understand so there’s really NO POINT AT ALL in coming on here and bitching about iy

So how did it get this way? And why do we all continue to accept it?… maybe ’cause we don’t want to accept the hardship that might result in the short/medium term if we decided to change? So let’s just kick along with the status quo and be ‘happy’?

I would love to tax them and see them face up to their moral and social responsibilities but in the current climate it AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN. We would need a global revolution on a scale never before seen.

A second enlightenment.

Bring it on…

There are lots of things wrong in the world this is just one of them. Problem is it’s the world we live in and it’s a free market economy.

Ah, but it’s not a free market. It’s a subsidised one. Bankers take risks and get rewarded for the returns on these risks, but the general public have to bail them out when things go wrong. Your risk/reward strategy is going to get skewed if you don’t reap what you sow.

6) Tax the swine! Come on make them pay! What’s that you say? They’ve all moved their operations to New York? Oh dear, that’s a massive sector of our economy gone. Now we’re quite poor, how ever are we going to run our country now? Maybe Greece or Spain can bail us out?

We need to seriously think about how we can change society to become less reliant on selling arms to dodgy regimes and high stakes financial gambling.

Of course I’m a hopeless hippy idealist, but I’d be fine with living in a society that was a bit poorer in general, but where people lived more sustainably, we weren’t in thrall to mega-rich bankers and arms manufacturers, and where we didn’t have the massive and growing inequality that we see now.

There is evidence that we’d all be happier and healthier too. Of course it will never happen.

I am a socialist

You are a very bad one given your views. They can pay their staff what they like for example very socialist comrade

When we call this the real world we act as if economics and capitalism are forces of nature, like the weather or tides, that are just beyond our control rather than man made. They like to say they will all leave – in which case just tax foreign based companies more on activity here if they leave for example to “disincentivise” movement- but I am less convinced they will. Having an economy based on making things rather than banking may be a better long term option for stability.
On newsnight last night the minister fior business was challenged about the 40-100 billion tax lost through evasion and avoidance – he just ignored the question. Got have priorities eh let bankers be ignore the avoidance up VAT for us all which has a higher burden on the poor
As binners wisely notes the irony socialism for the rich capitalism for the poor

i suspect those who say we had no choice ere bankers were not as supportive over caol , steel, cars makers , and manufacturing generally when it went to the dogs

So how did it get this way? And why do we all continue to accept it?

Because it gives us jobs, money, credit, cars, bikes, computers, iPads, an easy life. Which is all anyone wants. Isn’t it…?

System is too complicated to replace overnight, unfortunately. Governments have been trying to change it for a couple of hundred years.. with a certain amount of success it must be said.

They can pay their staff what they like for example very socialist comrade

Yeah you are not getting it. I’m a socialist but I’m more of a pragmatist. In the current climate they can and must pay their staff what they like. I wish it were another way but it’s not.

Having an economy based on making things rather than banking may be a better long term option for stability

Perhaps, but who’s gonna buy them? You need rich people to buy the stuff proles make.

Got have priorities eh let bankers be ignore the avoidance up VAT for us all which has a higher burden on the poor

I don’t think the govt WANT it to be this way. Stopping people avoiding tax is actually tremendously difficult. What are you gonna do? “Come on chaps, play fair. Give us a few billion quid.”

i suspect those who say we had no choice ere bankers were not as supportive over caol , steel, cars makers , and manufacturing generally when it went to the dogs

Manufacturing has to follow cheap labour otherwise it’ll price itself out of the market. We already learned this. So its’ decline in the UK is an inevitable consequence of our increase in living standards.

Banking does not.

Banking also supplies MONEY that all other industries need, so it’s more important than coal or steel or anything else.

Yeah you are not getting it. I’m a socialist but I’m more of a pragmatist. In the current climate they can and must pay their staff what they like.

You have the cheek to say I am not getting it when your view of “prgamatic ” socialism is exactly the same as a capitalists view of erm capitalism. 🙄

Banking also supplies MONEY that all other industries need, so it’s more important than coal or steel or anything else

Is that from Trotsky or from Marx. I am struggling to place the socialist doctrine in context
Where is Ernie when you really need him

Where is Ernie when you really need him

Probably out earning money in some form of private enterprise, the capitalist pig dog that he is! 😉

I don’t think the govt WANT it to be this way. Stopping people avoiding tax is actually tremendously difficult. What are you gonna do? “Come on chaps, play fair. Give us a few billion quid.”

It’s ‘difficult’ when the people avoiding the tax are your friends who contribute vast amounts of money to your political party. It’s also ‘difficult’ when you cut the funding to the organisation that is meant to recover it – despite every pound spent easily earning more back through recovered tax income.

🙄

molgrips – you’ve misunderstood the word ‘socialism’.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of ‘the system’, this level of bonus was always going to happen from the moment the bailouts/underwriting by the government took place. You are dealing with people who are largely morally corrupt, with scant regard for anyone except themselves, and out of necessity, their colleagues.

They hold UK Ltd to ransom with threats of going elsewhere but haven’t big businesses done that already by exploiting taxation loopholes and shifting profitable/taxable areas elsewhere? The main business location is largely irrelevant nowadays, so don’t you think they would have gone elsewhere already if that was viable?

Unfortunately the situation is unlikely to change anytime soon for the simple reason that the best financial brains are employed by the biggest payers. The less talented get work elsewhere eg. government services, so the reality is, they have no chance of outsmarting the ‘big boys’.

I do agree with Ton – it’s disgusting and immoral.

You have the cheek to say I am not getting it when your view of “prgamatic ” socialism is exactly the same as a capitalists view of erm capitalism

No. I don’t LIKE it the way it is. However I accept that it currently has to be like this. I would like it changed but I do not see how to do it.

You are confusing socialism with hopelessly naive idealism 🙂

molgrips – you’ve misunderstood the word ‘socialism’.

Go on?

It’s ‘difficult’ when the people avoiding the tax are your friends who contribute vast amounts of money to your political party.

Yep. Bear in mind though HMRC are not the elected government. How much say do the Tories have in it? Are HMRC the Govt’s dogs to call off?

I am not supporting the current Govt or their cuts in any way. Nor did I vote for them. I think they are not nice, their views are misguided and that they are making a serious balls up of things.

How much poorer would we be if they moved offshore?

Slightly fewer shiny cars and only one games console per household? Or, eating turnips and subsistence farming?

with deepest respect just Google the word socialism and come back when you undestand what the term means.

It’s greedy, but as others have pointed out it’s really a matter for the shareholders. It was Bob Diamond who led the purchase of Lehmans Brothers in the fire sale which has generated a lot of Barclays recent profits, and he wasn’t in charge during the crisis in 2008 – that was John Varley.

If people really want to direct venom at someone how about Eric Daniels, who recently stood down as head of Lloyds-TSB with a £2M bonus. He’s the one who, along with Victor Bland, took a perfectly good bank and nearly destroyed it through the shotgun wedding with HBOS (Gordon Brown also claimed responsibility for that until he realised what a bad idea it was). This one is now largely owned by the government, so you really do have a justification in complaining about that although it doesn’t seem to have grabbed as many headlines.

The worst bit is after all this arguing is it’s still just a lot of talk at the mo, most of the cuts haven’t actually kicked in yet,
Let’s see where we are after twelve months, it’s going to be fun 😕

People still unsure how banks work.

with deepest respect just Google the word socialism and come back when you undestand what the term means

Yes yes yes I do understand.

Now would you care to read carefully and slowly:

I would love a more socialist country. However I do not think it is currently possible. Therefore, we have to work with what we have at the moment.

Or to put it another way – we are where we are.

The Mash nails it again!

“Unless, of course, you’re somehow venting your dreary, uninformed fury on the internet via a computer made from twigs by a worker’s collective.

“And complaining that bankers are obsessed with making money is like saying lions are obsessed with eating gazelles.

“Perhaps you’d prefer us to sit around weaving fair trade wicker baskets and then use the profits from that to lend you cheap money so you can buy all those things you simply have to have.”

He added: “We could try communism but then Bob Diamond would earn millions from being in the politburo, only you’d know nothing about it because the newspaper has just the one story and it’s about how f****ng great your community tractor is.

“You could try complaining, just like you are now, but then someone who works for Bob Diamond would shoot you in the face.”

Cranberry

As usual, TDM says it much better than anyone on here ever could 😉

Yes yes yes I do understand

Clealry you do not. You want capitalism that is a bit nicer – or as you describe it I would love a more socialist country– or a mixed economy then

Marxism is an economic and socio-political worldview that contains within it a political ideology for how to change and improve society by implementing socialism. Originally developed in the early to mid 19th century by two German émigrés living in Britain, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Marxism is based upon a materialist interpretation of history. Taking the idea that social change occurs because of the struggle between different classes within society who are under contradiction one against the other, the Marxist analysis leads to the conclusion that capitalism, the currently dominant form of economic management, leads to the oppression of the proletariat, who not only make up the majority of the world’s populace but who also spend their lives working for the benefit of the bourgeoisie, or the wealthy ruling class in society.

To correct this inequality between the bourgeoisie, who are the wealthy minority, and the proletariat, who are the poorer majority, Marxism advocates, and believes in the historical inevitability of, a proletarian revolution, when the proletariat take control of government, and then implement reforms to benefit their class, namely the confiscation of private property which is then taken under state control and run for the benefit of the people rather than for the interests of private profit. Such a system is socialism, although Marxists believe that eventually a socialist society would develop into an entirely classless system, which is known as communism in Marxist thought.
this seems a fair way from your view dont you think?

perhaps you could use a put down to explain why your view and this view are the same?

the mash may indeed have nail head hit but if the guy was a decent human being could donate say 30million to charity and keep the remaining few million to buy essentials like milk bread, ipads and diamond encrusted buttplugs

uk hi street banking is the most profitable in europe, precisely because people aseem content to be bullied and blackmailed by the bankers

and casino banking while generating a lot of cash for the economy has also wiped out millions of peoples pensions as well as helping the uk economy into a big black hole bigger for which we are all about to pay

I’m still struck by the talk of ‘Well if you reduce the bonuses at company X they will go across the road to company Y’.

Doesn’t that mean that company Y will most probably go bankrupt as its full of greedy bankers? Do they have an infinite supply of jobs and will take the entire financial output for the universe for people of that ilk?

If so, can I have one for a year, then retire? 😀

You want capitalism that is a bit nicer

Nonono. I think that is the best we could hope for in the short to medium term.

However afaik Socialism encompasses a spectrum of ideas ranging from what we have now to communism. I would not want to see the end of private enterprise as I do not believe it would be beneficial.

Your post is about Marxism. Not the same thing. I am not a Marxist.

They never had a bailout and are making me and you money in tax they pay

They benefitted from the support we provided to the sector which enabled them to produce poor returns for their shareholders. We can not afford the financial sector as it is currently configured.

I expect the threat to move the whole operation off-shore is all piss and wind as the majority of their staff would not wish to go with them, the provision of subsidised benefits to offset the lack of universal healthcare and other benefits we enjoy here would also seriously impact the bottom line.

How about this for a suggestion?

1, Have a look who you bank with (you can tell by looking on that card you use to buy stuff).

2, Have a look what they pay out to the top staff and in bonuses.

3, If you don’t like the result in 2 move your bank to this lot

http://www.co-operativebank.co.uk/servlet/Satellite/1193206375355,CFSweb/Page/Bank

I would not want to see the end of private enterprise as I do not believe it would be beneficial.
Your post is about Marxism. Not the same thing. I am not a Marxist

I would not want to see the end of private enterprise as I do not believe it would be beneficial.

So not a socialist then as I stated originally 🙄

Your post is about Marxism. Not the same thing

I even highlighted the bit about socialism – to quote your own patronising style why not re- read it slowly and see if you can make the connection to socialism? Where do you think the word comes from if not from Marx?
Look you misused the word – you are quite clearly not a socialist – there is no wiggle room or debate here.
SOCIALISM
1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. [ ie NOT PRIOVATE ENTERRISE]
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
Have a nice day Comrade.

The Co-Op?

From the FT

“Meanwhile, Neville Richardson, who became chief executive of Co-operative Financial Services (CFS) after its takeover of the former Britannia Building Society last year, received a total of £970,000 in pay and bonuses from the society and CFS in 2009 – a 98 per cent leap in his earnings compared with 2008.”

They benefitted from the support we provided to the sector

Questionable. There is an argument that says that they would have been better off if the non-viable banks had been wound down in an appropriately controlled way leaving the viable banks to divide up the market. That way the real losers would have been the shareholders in the badly run banks, which is as it should be.

So not a socialist then as I stated originally

Well like I say there are different flavours of socialism – aren’t there?

“As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary socialism. Some currents of socialism, often referred to as state socialism, advocate complete nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy for implementing socialism; while social democrats advocate public control of capital within the framework of a market economy.”

I even highlighted the bit about socialism

You showed that Marxism is a form of Socialism, but that does not mean that Socialism is necessarily Marxism.

Is being sarcastic and patronising also a quality of socialism?

The unfairness is not with the way these private enterprises are renumerating their employees with funds that wouldn’t exist were it not for state intervention, but the way this government (and the one before it, and the two before that) would never ever consider allowing the banking industry, a large employer in the UK, to essentially relocate overseas as the banks are threatening to do in the face of current public criticism.

Relocating operations overseas – ignoring for now the skills gap which possibly exists between the UK and an emerging labour market (such as India) – would almost certainly increase the profit margins of the large banks as labour costs would be a fraction of what they are today.

Yet the government (and the one before it and the two before that) will do anything to prevent this – state subsidy, deregulation, anything. By doing this, the government is protecting UK jobs and tax revenues.

Why though, did previous governments not act in this way when other industries, major UK employers, wanted to do the same? Why did previous goverments, especially Thatcher’s, make no attempt to prevent this shifting overseas by entire industries? What’s so special about the banking industry?

This – IMO – is the crux of the unfairness in this whole matter. Other industries, predominantly manufacturing industries which largely employed working class people, have been left to die in the UK by previous governments yet the banking industry, which largely does not employ working class people, is being kept alive by a succession of government subsidies, the bill for which is being footed by the public purse.

Why though, did previous governments not act in this way when other industries, major UK employers, wanted to do the same?

But surely manufacturing of simple goods is always going to be unprofitable in this country, isn’t it? And finance can be profitable?

Bailing out the banks would result hopefully in them recovering and continuing to make tons of cash for themselves and the country.

Bailing out the building of say washing machines is not going to make us competitive with China ever ever is it?

The above are discussion points btw, not my arguments defending Thatch!

Questionable.

Mervyn King seems to think it’s pretty clear, but what would he know?

But surely manufacturing of simple goods is always going to be unprofitable in this country, isn’t it?

Interesting article here on how some US businesses are finding it profitable to bring back offshored manufacturing – http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/in-early-2010-somewhere-high.ars

One of the points that comes out of it is that the real competition is between manual labour and automated manufacturing, hence the drive by governments to promoted supposedly higher added-value jobs in e.g. finance; the manual assembly line stuff isn’t compatible with the sort of lifestyle people aspire to in this country.

Rio – Member

“If people really want to direct venom at someone how about Eric Daniels, who recently stood down as head of Lloyds-TSB with a £2M bonus. He’s the one who, along with Victor Bland, took a perfectly good bank and nearly destroyed it through the shotgun wedding with HBOS (Gordon Brown also claimed responsibility for that until he realised what a bad idea it was). This one is now largely owned by the government, so you really do have a justification in complaining about that although it doesn’t seem to have grabbed as many headlines.”

Give it a few years. Unless there’s a forced de-merger or other major dispersal of assets, Lloyds are probably going to be an absolute monster. You can’t judge these things on the short term (ironically a point often missed, by people who chastise banks for being too short-term focused in their investment and rewards culture)

As for the right of taxpayers to complain, a lot of people would argue that it’s still a bargain compared with HBOS failing outright. I don’t know myself, beyond my knowledge but it certainly seems plausible.

Is being sarcastic and patronising also a quality of socialism?

Yes.