I really dont know Kimbers. I think they should have the book thrown at them and anyone else who broke the law. Its absurd that no one (to my knowledge) has faced criminal charges in terms of market manipulation, inaccurate documentation, misleading information etc. The the head of the FSA ends up with a top job at a bank that sailed so close to wind it was amazing that it didnt capsize.

But that is still different from saying that the city is still unregulated.

Binners – there was a X-post there. Another banking crisis is possible for sure and banks ARE still to big to fail. That is a consequence of the grotesque levels of debt in the UK among other things and the very high levels of leverage that are a feature of how banks work. But again that is not the same thing as saying that the city is unregulated.

Indeed the challenge at the moment is to introduce counter-cyclical regulation (eg higher capital regulation) and a time when you want banks to do exactly the opposite ie, lend. Its a complete buggers muddle.

Unregulated City – are you sure about that binners?

They’re currently fighting hard to prevent a cap on the ludicrously vast bonuses that were widely cited as a factor in encouraging reckless gambling by the banks.

.

…..yes grum, and replace a system of low fixed costs (ok, in relative terms) and (potentially) high variable costs dependent on performance (?!?) with a high fixed cost model instead. Hmmm, and that makes banks better??????

The bonus culture was much abused for sure but the basic concept (when applied correctly) of low fixed costs and flexible variable costs based on performance is much better than where they are going now.

But regulation and indeed macro-economic policy are pretty much all the complete opposite of what is actually required, albeit for understandable reasons.

I think whatever George and chums have to say this week, the fact that they’re taking legal action in Europe (which we’re paying for) to defend bankers bonuses tells anyone with half a brain all they need to know about where the Tory Parties true priorities lie

…..yes grum, and replace a system of low fixed costs (ok, in relative terms) and (potentially) high variable costs dependent on performance (?!?) with a high fixed cost model instead. Hmmm, and that makes banks better??????

The bonus culture was much abused for sure but the basic concept (when applied correctly) of low fixed costs and flexible variable costs based on performance is much better than where they are going now.

Or they could just pay them a bit (or even a lot) less in both fixed costs and variable costs – seeing as they were clearly doing a shit job, and most statistics show that even the most lauded amongst them generally do no better than you would by flipping a coin to make your trading decisions.

And because most other people in the country have taken a pay cut/freeze for the last few years due to the banks’ incompetence/greed/recklessness.

But obviously that’s not an option for some reason.

The bonus culture was much abused for sure but the basic concept (when applied correctly) of low fixed costs and flexible variable costs based on performance is much better than where they are going now.

‘Performance’ means you get a massive bonus because you got lucky at gambling.

The bonus culture was much abused for sure but the basic concept (when applied correctly) of low fixed costs and flexible variable costs based on performance is much better than where they are going now.

If that was truly the case then I don’t think people would have an issue. The problem with that is that the ‘flexible variable costs’ seemed to have no connection whatsoever with the actual performance. The banks performance was ultimately disastrous for the whole country, yet the people responsible for it did, and continue to, trouser billions in bonuses.

Just as senior company management, even at the likes of the BBC, unashamedly trouser millions for appalling performances. And their interests will be staunchly represented in Manchester (oh the ironing), to the almost complete exclusion of everybody else!

Like I said though… we can continue to blame the poor, the unemployed and the disabled instead. Its easier

Agree 100% of failures in application, Binners. But to “regulate” against the principle is absurd headline grabbing IMO and shows little understanding of basic business sense.

Grum – don’t believe everything that Uncle Vince says. There are large parts of finance that have nothing to do with gambling or a casino. To suggest otherwise is like calling all unepmployed people work shy!

Grum – don’t believe everything that Uncle Vince says.

What does ‘Uncle Vince’ say? I have no idea.

There are large parts of finance that have nothing to do with gambling or a casino.

True, but very, very few if any of them deserve the kind of ludicrous bonuses that our government is fighting so hard to protect.

Is there a single scrap of evidence that having a vastly inflated bonus scheme attracts the brightest and best? It just appears to attract the greediest.

He is our Business Secretary who thinks it is both accurate and appropriate to refer to the financial sector (a key part of the UK economy) as a casino. If he believes that then he is an idiot and not fit for the job, if he doesn’t, then he should shut and is even more of an idiot and not fit for the job.

I am sure that high pay levels and other factors are considerable reasons why many graduates from Oxbridge, LSE etc still look for careers in finance.

Anyway this is a side show. I am still looking for how GO is going to deliver a budget surplus while keeping an eye in the storm clouds gathering again in Europe and Washington today.

Is there a single scrap of evidence that having a vastly inflated bonus scheme attracts the brightest and best? It just appears to attract the greediest.

Hmm well these institutions try to get the best people from around the world and are competing with similar places. So they offer lots of cash to attract them. Easiest for them with generous bonuses as said before – more flexible. I’d have thought a better approach would be to limit bonuses based on company performance rather than a multiple of salary – of course they’ll just put up the salary so they still get the people they want.

That said, I’m sure the City could fund their own legal challenge.

But to “regulate” against the principle is absurd headline grabbing IMO and shows little understanding of basic business sense.

Were we not meant to be discussing the best method for punishing the poor rather than explaining why it was economically essentially to give massive and fantastic rewards to the bloody greedy?
Either way I like the right wing meme – dolies =lazy scum to be punished – bankers essential to the economy and we need to reward them massively as well – which has cost the economy the most in the last few years do you reckon THM?

THM that right wing capitalistic rhetoric masquerading as fact.
Your contempt for vince is something i dont understand [ please dont try and explain again it just seemed to be to be venom – though of course you are impartial and neutral]IIRC when he compared them to that it was in relation to the huge and phenomenal levels of [bad] debt they have dumped on our doorstep along with a load of pay freezes and redundancy. PS i want to work in a an industry so important everyone bales you out when you **** up, the rules of capitalism re failure dont apply and you continue to get your bonuses whilst everyone else takes the shit for your mistakes. Whats more the govt will defend you in europe and turn a blind eye to the city being the centre of tax evasion/avoidance.

Calm down JY. Where have I backed/forgiven bankers errors or crimes? I agree with the arguments abiut why none have been bought to justice. I am also well aware of the direct financial impact on the economy and the indirect, well actually still very direct, problem that the banking system here and elsewhere is still not functioning properly.

Still I am able to also step back and see that a banking system remains vital in any economy, that a pay system that includes low fixed costs is preferable to the opposite, that imposing tighter capital requirements on banks (=> shrinking balance sheets (not such a bad idea)) is problematic when your main instrument of policy requires banks to lend more.. I would expect an ex-economist and a Business Secretary to be able to do the same. It’s business common sense, nothing more.

My comments on bashing the poor and the lack of policy substance today and last week were in my OP.

Given the desire of many for extra government spending/ wider role in the economy and therefore the obvious need for a liquid and functioning primary and secondary market for government borrowing/debt it is equally absurd for people to question the need for a fully functioning financial sector. Again that’s failing to use common sense. Rather like, we want to raise more tax revenue but do not want companies to make profit?!?! Folk should be careful what they wish for.

I dont think i accused you of anything tbh- your not right wing are you so the meme could not have been directed at you 😉 FWIW it was not aimed at you so sorry if it reads like that.

I would expect an ex-economist and a Business Secretary to be able to do the same. It’s business common sense, nothing more.

Perhaps he may just disagree with you?
what annoys me is that they hit the poor and ignore those, and probably more importantly the culture* that caused the problems. I cannot see how this helps tbh.
Banking is vital in the capitalist system but it needs to function for the benefit of all not just the few. I am not convinced secrecy and bonuses helps with that tbh and would argue it hinders. Certainly the system did display some faults that caused the crash.

* i would imagine that bankers could easily be motivated by their short term personal final gain via bonuses than the long term business/economic success – its hardly a radical though rather more just business common sense.

I agree on hitting the poor and the slightly bizarre thing about the US model is that it actually costs more to implement than to just keep writing checks. So the Tories won’t make any budget gains with this policy and even if they did its largely an irrelevance in terms of the impact on the budget. Like energy caps its headlines and spin and focus group politics.

Buy JY you are correct, I am definitely not neutral on Uncle Vince – I hold my hand up there.

To have people who may not want a job turn up a job centres on a daily basis will take resources away from trying to find work for the shorter term unemployed.

you are under the mistaken belief that the JC help you fond work rather than they are the custodians of the benefit money who ask you if you have complied with the rules

Go in and ask for some help – see what happens.
They dont have the time to do anything anyway its 8 mins per standard signing interview at present iirc

Aye THM it is about sounding tough rather than it being meaningful or helpful
Personally i fail to see how , when you look at the collection of reprobates and amoral egomaniacs that make up this govt, you would decide Vince requires the scorn. He is fairly low down my list even amongst the Lib dems

I am sure that high pay levels and other factors are considerable reasons why many graduates from Oxbridge, LSE etc still look for careers in finance

Maybe, but the “brightest & the best” rhetoric that has been used (repeatedly) to defend City culture over the last decade or so is looking very, very thin.

There is one inconvenient truth in all this. That there are plenty of jobs out there. Immigrants from Poland don’t have any problem strolling into this country and finding work immediately. The problem is that there are some people who have either cottoned on that they’re better off on benefits especially if they have a few kids, or seem to think that the jobs that are available are somehow beneath them. Sorry, but if you’re unemployed you don’t have the luxury to pick and choose to work. Just get a job then you can at least start looking for something better.

I think getting the long term unemployed out to do some form of work or training is a great idea. What’s the alternative? Just let them continue to sponge off the system? This notion that everyone on benefits are somehow victims of the system is just tripe. There are plenty of people out there playing the system and taking those of us who work for a ride. The best thing the government can do for the unemployed is to create an environment where business can thrive and compete on the world stage, and the jobs will come. The government can’t create jobs out of thin air. The last Labour government did that with disastrous consequences creating a lost generation and stripping millions of any sense of worth and embedded them into a life on benefits. As a country we cannot afford to keep people on benefits.

At least Osborne is being honest and telling us that austerity is here for at least the next terms, in order to properly deal with the mess the last government left the public finances in, and not trying to spin us the trip that red Ed is spinning in order to win power.

People need to get a grip and realise that we’re not as rich as we thought we were – not as a country and not individually. In fact, we never were – it was all an illusion created by Brown and his addiction to borrowing.

I was made redundant in April and had to visit the job centre. One lady went through my financial paperwork with fine tooth comb and bad attitude, before I was passed to a far more pleasant lady who went through some of the jobs gov stuff I had to fill in on the website.
I was thankfully not out of work long enough to use their service for a prolonged time. It did seem like a tick box exercise, and a degrading experience I hope not to have to repeat. I assumed they may have provided more help if you had been out of work for longer.

There is one inconvenient truth in all this. That there are plenty of jobs out there.

There are jobs for all the unemployed people? I seem to remember there’s about 400,000 job vacancies and several million unemployed who are eligible for work. Never mind the numbers of underemployed.

The last Labour government did that with disastrous consequences creating a lost generation and stripping millions of any sense of worth and embedded them into a life on benefits. As a country we cannot afford to keep people on benefits.

Evidence for the ‘lost generation’? And as already pointed out only a small proportion of the benefits bill goes to the unemployed anyway. You really have swallowed the Sun/Express/Daily Mail hate-mongering wholesale haven’t you.

Might be worth reading up on some actual facts to go with your unbridled prejudices.

The best thing the government can do for the unemployed is to create an environment where business can thrive and compete on the world stage, and the jobs will come.

What they’re trying to create is a race to the bottom, which we will never win.

Hmm well these institutions try to get the best people from around the world and are competing with similar places. So they offer lots of cash to attract them. Easiest for them with generous bonuses as said before – more flexible.

Yup, I know the theory – just wondering if there is actually any evidence for it. If there was presumably the financial institutions paying the best salaries and bonuses would be the best-performing ones, as they would have attracted the ‘brightest and best’. Is this the case?

There is one inconvenient truth in all this. That there are plenty of jobs out there

I hope the rest if the post is as entertaining

What’s the alternative? Just let them continue to sponge off the system?

Have you considered euthenasia or perhaps eugenics?

The best thing the government can do for the unemployed is to create an environment where business can thrive and compete on the world stage, and the jobs will come.

Of course arbeit macht Frei

The last Labour government did that with disastrous consequences creating a lost generation and stripping millions of any sense of worth and embedded them into a life on benefits.

Indeed everyone knows unemployment was lower under the labour govt than now..good point well made.

As a country we cannot afford to keep people on benefits.

Its costs us less than what we loose from tax avoidance and evasion.
We can easily afford it and it is a measure of your morality not your wallet.

red Ed

I heard a tory describe him as a radical socialist today 😯

People need to get a grip

I cannot speak for others but that post really helped me get a grip
THANKS

wobbliscott – Member

There is one inconvenient truth in all this. That there are plenty of jobs out there.

Yes, there are 2.487 million jobs unfilled right now, and also 1.45 full time jobs waiting for the part-timers who want to be full time.

You can’t actually believe this horseflops, can you? It’d be like believing the moon is made of cream cheese, or richmtbguru is a real bike coach.

meanwhile

Pensioners…when are those idle buggers gonna do some work instead of standing around insisting their kids keep them in murray mints and lavendar pot pourri….the pensions bill is 240,000,000 times bigger than the unemployment bill

arbeit macht frei

you are treading on thin ice again JY??? A certain panda will be after you again!!!!

But on serious note, what is moral about keeping people on benefits? It is degrading, humiliating and strips people ultimately of their self esteem. That seems pretty immoral to me – and is something that normally enjoys a consensus of views.

The inconvenient truth wobbliscot overlooks, and has already been mentioned, is the majority of benefits being paid to people in work, thru tax credits. Would wobbliscot, who I’m guessing is gonna be towards the right of the political spectrum, care to comment on the Millions (billions?) spent on the state subsidised (two words that should put the fear of god into any self respecting right winger) wages of private enterprise?

Telegraph Link, the bastion of left wing socialism

just a small aside–i regularly look for jobs –daily–apply for many–yet continually many ‘vacancies’ do not actually exist–found one job advertised by four different agencies–all given different ref numbers–so by govt stats–thats four jobs–reality was four agencies fishing’ in case there may be a ‘vacancy’–this is repeated many times-as for something for notjhing–that would be the silver spoons that osbourne/cameron and their ilk enjoy as an accident of birth–for now…..

Wobbliscot gets the Paul dacre prize for cramming the most Tory bulshit bingo phrases into one statement yet not stating a single fact

you right there kimbers– i bet even the tories cant beleive people swallow their bulls hit– bet they have a laugh about it–see how outrageous they can be–and people listen to these cretins….

The Tories need to understand that many people end up in long term unemployment because of circumstances beyond their control, for example needing to act as a carer, or suffering from a mental or physical disability. Extortionate transport costs will prevent people in isolated locations from attending a Jobcentre every day or possibly travelling to a suitable voluntary position.

The current rules on volunteering for unemployed people seem to discourage many people from getting the maximum benefit from volunteering opportunities – remember the graduate archeologist who was told to stop volunteering on a historical dig to stack shelves in Poundland or similar.

There is alot of evidence from Citizens Advice Bureaux around the country that the existing punative benefit sanctions imposed by the Government have led to a rise in the number of people being referred to food banks.