Forum menu
Are we? I must have missed that bit - I thought the banks were making profit, some of which was going into the treasury because we own them, and that we were actually bailing out the last government's structural overspending.
aracer you are turning into ratty - are you really suggesting that the banking crisis has no cost to the public finances? And if we are making some of that money back from the banks - isn't that because of the last government's good response to the crisis? You can't have it both ways.
one banks investment arm earned a good few billion. the few top dudes awarded themselves 1/4 of this in bonuses. Millions each. Thats money that is not going to the government that could and should be.
No one needs or deserves bonuses worth millions. Thats not reward, thats just greed.
here read up -
The financial crisis of 2007 to the present is a crisis triggered by a liquidity shortfall in the United States banking system.[1] It has resulted in the collapse of large financial institutions, the bailout of banks by national governments, and downturns in stock markets around the world. In many areas, the housing market has also suffered, resulting in numerous evictions, foreclosures and prolonged vacancies. It is considered by many economists to be the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s.[2] It contributed to the failure of key businesses, declines in consumer wealth estimated in the hundreds of trillions of U.S. dollars, substantial financial commitments incurred by governments, and a significant decline in economic activity.[3] Many causes have been suggested, with varying weight assigned by experts.[4] Both market-based and regulatory solutions have been implemented or are under consideration,[5] while significant risks remain for the world economy over the 2010–2011 periods.[6]The collapse of the housing bubble, which peaked in the U.S. in 2006, caused the values of securities tied to real estate pricing to plummet thereafter, damaging financial institutions globally.[7] Questions regarding bank solvency, declines in credit availability, and damaged investor confidence had an impact on global stock markets, where securities suffered large losses during late 2008 and early 2009. Economies worldwide slowed during this period as credit tightened and international trade declined.[8] Critics argued that credit rating agencies and investors failed to accurately price the risk involved with mortgage-related financial products, and that governments did not adjust their regulatory practices to address 21st century financial markets.[9] [b]Governments and central banks responded with unprecedented fiscal stimulus[spending], monetary policy expansion, and institutional bailouts.[/b]
They spent to get us out of the recession - so did all governments and now we are paying the price - too quickly IMHO-what western govt did not end up with a structural defecit ?Is this a coincidence?
Banking, the economy would have been where without the spending etc.
you are takking your politcial view to a point wher reality cannot match it or trolling not sure which TBH
The government have let the bankers off the hook
So what should they be doing to keep them on the hook?
Take the £7billion off the bankers
How? I'm all for a realistic way to do this, but haven't actually seen a practical suggestion.
aracer you are turning into ratty - are you really suggesting that the banking crisis has no cost to the public finances?
Just trying to introduce a bit of reality - of course I'm not suggesting that, but describing the current spending cuts as being to "bale out the bankers" is so far from the truth it's ridiculous. The money which was spent on bailing out the banks is gone and is part of our debt, and has absolutely nothing to do with the structural deficit they're trying to reduce.
Any government which didn't have a [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_deficit ]structural deficit[/url] before the recession!They spent to get us out of the recession - so did all governments and now we are paying the price - too quickly IMHO-what western govt did not end up with a structural defecit ?
FWIW I'm far from an apologist for the bankers and totally agree with TJ's latest post - the thing is, unlike most people on this thread I'm a realist rather than an idealist and not interested in ideological class war.
The money which was spent on bailing out the banks is gone and is part of our debt
You seem very nonchalant about this. Also, that doesn't include the wider damage done to the economy by the economic crisis, which even people like Mervyn King admit was largely caused by the banking sector. Which is [i]still[/i] not lending money as it should, yet making astronomical profits and bonuses again.
unlike most people on this thread I'm a realist rather than an idealist
So being a realist is just blindly accepting the status quo - I wonder where we would be without 'idealists' throughout human history? William Wilberforce, Ghandi, Nelson Mandela: hopeless idealists eh?
unlike most people on this thread I'm a realist rather than an idealist and not interested in ideological class war.
Yes ,course you are only your interpretation is correct thanks for that.
So in your realist view then the the crisis had no effect on the defecit then. The structural defecit was in decline - see link and table and the actual defecit has increased x 20 inthe last 3 years- again you realist view must see these as unrelated facts and only a an idlelogical class war person will view this as related- yes very grounded in reality your view.
Thanks for linking to what a structural defecit is - to be fair I would be better describing this state as a small structural defecit [ you cant really defend these unless you are investing] which has massive cyclical elements- I asked what western govts did not have one though.
but describing the current spending cuts as being to "bale out the bankers"
It would be more accurate if everyone said to bale us out form the effetcs of the recession caused by the banking crisis. I suspect it is just an abbreviation rather than proof that they all believe in class war
I cant see anything on here about class war despite your assertion - seems to be people think tax should fall on those with most money - as has been shown on here many of those, affected by this, clearly have no class 😆 http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data
You seem very nonchalant about this. Also, that doesn't include the wider damage done to the economy by the economic crisis, which even people like Mervyn King admit was largely caused by the banking sector. Which is still not lending money as it should, yet making astronomical profits and bonuses again.
It's easy to be nonchalent when the government has made a paper profit on their investments in the banks. In any case the only thing any of this has to do with the spending review is that it's one of the reasons for having to do it.
So being a realist is just blindly accepting the status quo
No - it's about picking fights you can win, something the "idealists" you mention knew all about.
Thanks for linking to what a structural defecit is
Shame you apparently didn't read it, given:
The structural defecit was in decline - see link and table
<link to a table which shows the total deficit in decline and provides no evidence about the structural deficit>
deleted post - actually why bother
So the Govt are doing well out of the banks they part own and the investment is returning a profit.
So without the crisis and need to invest in the banks we'd be even worse off?
Blaming the banks for this whole mess is like putting a hole in a bucket and blaming the water for running out.
Better to blame whoever made the hole, no?
god dam tree hugging lefties
I'm a tree hugging leftie but I agree with Tazzy.
Heh heh heh
Rather than dwelling on the fairness or not of the 'solution' - how about whether it will work or not?
Paul Krugman in the New York Times says it won't.
[url= http://nyti.ms/aYgA8g ]NY Times[/url]
Apparently, of the £7Bn in bonuses, approximately £4.5Bn will be coming back to the government in the form of taxes.
Of course, the folk earning these bonuses will have them included in their contract of employment. I'm sure all you union-lefty-whingers wouldn't want to see these workers having their contracts ripped up at a whim. Or is it OK in their case but not in the case of a nurse or a miner?
I think it tells you all you need to know that Rupert Murdoch has welcomed the Tory measures - I'm very confident that he has all our best interests at heart.
I really do find the "fair" taxation argument interesting!
how is a progressive taxation system 'fair'?
Taxation that is progressive/regressive neutral is 'fair' - ie, the rich and poor are affected [u]equally![/u]
How is it fair for the rate to go up as you earn more? - the rich already pay more [b]thats how percentages work[/b]
Even funnier is the 'Keynsian economics' argument for financial stimulus!
"We will borrow even more money to create jobs.”
That would be brilliant if we thought you could be trusted to decide which kinds of jobs ought to be created. Only you don’t. I don’t. No-one does. Better to lift the dead hand of centralist interveners and politicians and let people create their own jobs through innovation, experimentation and – yes! – failure.
Wiltshire covers 1,346 square miles. That works out at around 5,098,649,600 square yards. We could generate work for tens of thousands of carpet-fitters by agreeing to cover Wiltshire in carpet. Does that make any sense? Well no. But what would make sense?
Do you know where economic growth will come from in 5 years time… do I…. does anybody? Nope!
I'm a tree hugging leftie but I agree with Tazzy.
I'm a tree hugging couldn't give a sh1t about politics-ist but big hugs in hairy lets love the planet and be excellent to each other kind of way 😆
aracer - MemberI'm a realist rather than an idealist and not interested in ideological class war.
And yet you support a bunch of politicians who are in the process of launching an undeclared ideological class war on the British people. That rather smacks of hypocrisy.
Professor David Blanchflower is a very highly respected economist holding posts at Stirling, Bonn, Munich and Dartmouth universities. For three years he was a member of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee which sets interest rates to enable the inflation targets to be met.
Last year he was awarded the CBE for services to Industry and the Bank of England, after correctly predicting in November 2007 that the UK would face a recession. He is precisely the sort of person you would expect David Cameron, George Osborne, and Nick Clegg, to listen to.
This is what Professor David Blanchflower has had to say about the present government's economic policies :
[b][i]"Implementing an austerity package on the scale and at the speed proposed by the coalition has the potential to be the greatest macro economic mistake of the century
"There's no example in history where such a thing as this has ever worked. The only examples in history is where you've done this and it's failed"[/i][/b]
The warnings are all there ..... there is no proof or evidence that Osborne's plan will succeed in its [u]stated[/u] aim.
But the Bullingdon Boys don't care.
Because if unemployment, low wages, poverty, homelessness, and social deprivation - with all its consequences of rising crime etc, all increase, they will simply blame Labour for everything.
They have already had remarkable success blaming this [i]whole[/i] mess on Labour - despite the clear evidence to the contrary.
But more, much more than that, they are determined to achieve their lifetime's burning ambition - to role back "socialism" and leave Britain and the British people in the hands of unfettered rampant Capitalism.
You don't need a well-educated, healthy, fully employed, wealthy population, living in nice houses, to make vast amounts of profit and wealth - Victorian industrialists and financiers managed to do that extremely well.
The Tories just need people to vote for them. And the people have (just about) and undoubtedly will again, specially if the Tories keep Rupert and his media empire on their side. Which I think is pretty much guaranteed - especially now that they have well and truly shafted the BBC for him.
And even if they lose an election, its really no big deal - Labour governments of the 21st century have proved to, utterly lack both the courage and determination, to take on the industrialists, the financiers, and the media moguls. Or in any way at all, to reverse previous Tory governments agendas.
The Tories and their LibDem stooges have fired the first shots in a new ideological class war.....whilst Labour sits twiddling their thumbs consumed with worry about what the newspapers will say about them.
Zulu-eleven
Fair is what the other guy has to pay and I don't.
ourmaninthenorth - Member
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - said by someone cleverer than me...
Isn't that Marxism in a nutshell? Brilliant idea, with one tiny problem. Human nature.
Taxation that is progressive/regressive neutral is 'fair' - ie, the rich and poor are affected equally!
You need to look up the meanings of the words
[b] Progressive taxes attempt to reduce the tax incidence of people with a lower ability-to-pay, as they shift the incidence increasingly to those with a higher ability-to-pay.
[/b]
more money = more tax and a higher percentage of your income paid in tax
[b] a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich — there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay as measured by assets, consumption, or income.
[/b]
Less money = higher tax rate
In essence you are just wrong -the rich and poor are not equally affected by either taxation system or we would have no reason to give them different names or definitions - There is no room for our usual banter on this ..I suppose you could redefine all these words to mean something other than what they actually mean or just insult me because you cannot argue using logic or reason
the rich already pay more thats how percentages work
well only if you ignore the percentage bit of the percentage tax system.
The rest of your post made even less sense have you stolen my stash?
[img] 
[/img]
some STW forum members earlier today...
Isn't that Marxism in a nutshell? Brilliant idea, with one tiny problem. Human nature.
No it isn't really Marxism in a nutshell - there's more to that quote for a start.
As as far as "human nature" is concerned, "normal" human nature is rather hard to define - it changes with time. There was a time when watching humans being eaten alive by starving animals was perfectly normal human nature. As was keeping slaves. I could go on......
It's also fair to say that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" has been practised throughout the overwhelming history of our species - millions of years in fact. So it would be hard to argue that it doesn't fit in with human nature.
Although I fully accept the sentiments behind your comment - human society is clearly not at that level of development. And God only knows how long it would take to reach that.
That's why it should read as part of the [i]whole[/i] quote.
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs
I think that is why people just say the last bit ...more catchy easier to grasp.
launching an undeclared ideological class war on the British people
You HAVE to admit that you are second-guessing their motives based on your previously formed opinions of the people involved. Most of the rest of that post is conjeecture, based on your own political bias, isn't it?
I don't think politics or politicians (aka people) work along those lines.
You HAVE to admit that you are second-guessing their motives based on your previously formed opinions
I'm not sure there is much "guessing" going on and it is not based simply on my previously formed opinions - although they clearly play a very important part.
Much of it is based on what other people are saying, such as Professor David Blanchflower with his comment : [i]"There's no example in history where such a thing as this has ever worked. The only examples in history is where you've done this and it's failed"[/i] It is clear that failure is pretty much a foregone conclusion - raising unemployment, lack of demand, lack of growth etc. But Osborne seems hugely unbothered - and don't forget that he completely failed to predict the global crises/recession. "Success" doesn't seem to be the overriding consideration, so there must be another motive. Is there any doubt that the Tories have a long history of attacking the welfare state and wanting to reduce the public sector and wages ? Clearly the present situation has provided them with a golden opportunity. And only a fool would believe that they are doing all this simply for the benefit of ordinary working people. They are in it for themselves. And they will grab everything they can - why wouldn't they ?
Junkyard - actually that isn't the quote I was referring to. In fact I now realise that I was referring to Lenin's principle of socialism (first phase communism) within Marxist theory : from each according to their ability, to each according to their work. Leading to a more advanced society based on, from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. It's often forgotten that Marx argued for the establishment of socialism, before there was any possibility of further advancement. Something which many of the [i]socialist[/i] countries also chose to forget, with their scant regard for : to each according to their contribution/work.
I only googled for the quote ernie but cheers my knowledge of Marx is not that great but I have read some of his stuff many years ago ..complicated is my main memory of it.
Indeed they did and harmed the [global]cause no endSomething which many of the socialist countries also chose to forget
I am not saying the cuts are a good idea - it's clearly risky as hell for the reasons obvious to most.
However I really don't think that George and Dave are sitting in an oak panelled office saying 'this is a great chance to kick the scum back down to where they belong!'
I think Thatcher was much more ideologically motivated. Dave and Nick are just being thoughtless and impulsive I think.
my knowledge of Marx is not that great but I have read some of his stuff many years ago ..complicated is my main memory of it.
My knowledge of Marx is very far from great (I'm sure many on here have a much better knowledge). Complicated ? The intellectual tw4t was incapable of writing anything which a working class person with basic education like me can easily understand. The only exception is the Communist Manifesto, but that's probably because Engels said to him "'ere mate, let me help you with this one". That's why I rely so much on Lenin (plus of course Lenin had a more contemporary and practical take on things) I don't think your second point is quite as straight forward as that - but that's a whole different argument.
I really don't think that George and Dave are sitting in an oak panelled office saying 'this is a great chance to kick the scum back down to where they belong!'
I'm not sure they need to sit down and think about it as such, it's all pretty natural for a Bullingdon Boy. A bit like joining the Tory Party ....it's the natural order of things. As is grabbing opportunities when they present themselves. And I wouldn't underestimate Osborne - I reckon he's probably far more shrewd and clever than you might imagine. More so than Cameron I reckon.
I'm just reading Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine - which makes interesting reading in the current circumstances. Makes you realise that NeoCons wait for a good crisis and then rather than having to develop a plan, they can reach onto the shelf and dust off 'The Big Boy's Book of Milton Friedman' and set about dismantling the public sector and privatising it. If you think about the language being used it's clear that the current crisis is allowing them to go far further in this tgN they would be able to otherwise.
Oh and as noted above - it's unlikely to work but no one seems to worry about that.
Makes you realise that NeoCons wait for a good crisis.......
And then exaggerate it into the realms of absurdity.
Christopher Pissarides is a Greek Cypriot born Professor who holds the Norman Sosnow Chair in Economics at the Economics Department and is Director of the Research Programme on Macroeconomics at the Centre for Economic Performance, both at the London School of Economics. He speaks fluent Greek and is world renowned - last monday he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics.
Last week Prof Pissarides accused George Osborne of having "exaggerated" the risk of a Greek-style debt crisis.He said :
[b][i]"It is important to avoid this 'sovereign risk'. But in my view Britain is a long way from such a threat, and the Chancellor has exaggerated the sovereign risks that are threatening the country,
These risks were not necessary at this point. He could have outlined a clear deficit-reduction plan over the next five years, postponing more of the cuts, until recovery became less fragile. The 'sovereign risk' would have been minimal.
Unemployment is high and job vacancies few. By taking the action that the Chancellor outlined in his statement, this situation might well become worse,
Overall, the Chancellor is putting the economy through some unnecessary risks because of his fear of sovereign risk, which does not appear justified" [/i][/b]
.
And whilst on the subject of Nobel Prize winning economists, this is what Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman, Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, has had to say about Osborne's Plan :
[b][i]Why is the British government doing this? The real reason has a lot to do with ideology: the Tories are using the deficit as an excuse to downsize the welfare state. But the official rationale is that there is no alternative.
Indeed, there has been a noticeable change in the rhetoric of the government of Prime Minister David Cameron over the past few weeks — a shift from hope to fear. In his speech announcing the budget plan, George Osborne, the chancellor of the Exchequer, seemed to have given up on the confidence fairy — that is, on claims that the plan would have positive effects on employment and growth.
And, what's likely to result:
What happens now? Maybe Britain will get lucky, and something will come along to rescue the economy. But the best guess is that Britain in 2011 will look like Britain in 1931, or the United States in 1937, or Japan in 1997. That is, premature fiscal austerity will lead to a renewed economic slump. As always, those who refuse to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it."[/i][/b]
Are you paying attention aracer ? ......a Nobel Prize winning professor of economics is saying that Bullingdon Boys motivation are ideological considerations, rather than economic ones.
So it's not just a leftie building worker who's making those ridiculous claims then.
I'm not sure they need to sit down and think about it as such, it's all pretty natural for a Bullingdon Boy.
How do you know all this? Seriously - do you know any of these Bullingdon boys, or have you spoken to one at length?
I'm sceptical of your entrenched view of things to be honest.
You are living in a fantasy land molgrips, if you think these guys enter politics and then operate with an open mind.
Do you honestly think that public school educated sons of aristocrats who go to school in fancy dress, and then join exclusive fancy dress clubs at Oxford with others who were born to rule, are not brought up to have an unshatterable ideological commitment ?
Do you honestly think that the likes of Cameron and Osborne go to their their fathers and say "please darling papa, I'm thinking of pursuing a career in politics but can't quite decide how I can best serve the interests of ordinary British people - Conservative or Labour, what do you think?"
How many Bullingdon Boys go on to join the Labour Party ffs ?
Joining the Conservative Party in a foregone conclusion which requires absolutely no discussion at all.
Exactly the same as the economic policies which they then go on to pursue.
The economic policies which Cameron and Osborne are pursuing today was decided the day they were born. It has nothing to do with anything other than that. They are [i]every bit[/i] as ideologically committed as I am, and it is absurd to suggest otherwise.
you are such a gentle troll molgrips
How do you know all this? Seriously - do you know any of these Bullingdon boys, or have you spoken to one at length?
They stood for election, published a manifesto then did things to the country. Is that sufficient to form an opinionon on them or do we need to dine together in a private male only club first?
I guess I should reserve judgement on Hitler, Pol pot, mandela and Ghandi. It is not like thier actions, speeches or beliefs allow me to form opinions of them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4502656.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cameron
Enough here for anyone to form an opinion on him
You see to be forming views on ernie but I suspect you have yet to do lunch
come the revolution I shall be selling matches.
come the revolution I shall be selling matches.
Ah I see ....... an opportunist who wants to monopolise a niche in the market and exploit a genuine demand for their own personal gain.
Well let me tell you something matey, come the revolution we shall deal with your type in the most forthright manner.
Matches will be provided free of charge to all class-conscious members of the proletariat.
They stood for election, published a manifesto then did things to the country. Is that sufficient to form an opinionon on them
No. It's sufficient to form an opinion on their parties' ideas for the current political situation as they see it. Given the competence of politicians and the burden of spurious marketing and spin under which they have to operate, I'd say it's impossible to really understand how the individuals concerned feel about their fellow human beings.
By all means judge their policies on whether or not you think they will work (I don't think they will very well) but judging their policies based on the kind of people you think they are is a bit silly.
I guess I should reserve judgement on Hitler, Pol pot, mandela and Ghandi
Ridiculous!
But quite a good idea re Mandela and Ghandi. Two people idolised by millions whose public image is quite possibly not quite like the truth.
Either thay are very thick or they are doing this for ideological reasons - or both
Its very clear from as whole load of analysis like that posted by Ernie that this is a foolish path to take at best. So if they want to take it they are either thick or are not doing it with the best interests of the country at heart. Remember Cameron is a PR flack.
.....but judging their policies based on the kind of people you think they are is a bit silly.
So give me a list of Bullingdon Club members who went on the become Labour politicians then.
After all, a great many of them do enter politics.
Clearly Bullingdon Club members are particular type of persons who have a particular type of ideology.
You don't need special powers to figure out how they will be behave once they have entered politics.
To suggest that they come to conclusions once in power based on a neutral starting point, is more than
"a bit silly"
Indeed. People form their opinions and ideas from multriple sources but your peers are an important one.
These guys have very little or no experience outside the metropolitan elite and the rich. Of course tehy will be right wing economically and this has been tory policy as long as I have known politics. Reduce the state sector, make sure the elite are insulated from any cuts. After all teh wealth of the country belongs to the rich.
[url=
think this bears repeating...[/url]
People form their opinions and ideas from multriple sources but your peers are an important one
If he is not a product of his upbringing why did his parents send him to private school in the first place?
If you grow up in a rough council estate, surrounded by poverty, drugs , unemployment and crime and someone else grows up in luxury , private schools , stately homes, foreign holidays chaufeurs etc does anyone really beleieve that neither iindividual wil be affected by the upbrining. prince charles will have similiar outlook on life as a homeless street urchin ? No point blaming either one for it it nor really denying it we are all products of our environment/upbrining - we call it learning generally.