B.O.E. gets tougher on bankers

[DeltonaS]

toppstuff said:

I think people stopped taking you seriously when you pretended to know about SPV's, it seems to me. You blew it. No one is going to listen now.

Well done SIR, I think you're waisting you're time here. (with you're organized nonsense)

Edited by DeltonaS on Friday 1st August 20:24

[legzr1]

crankedup said:

Government is busy encouraging the pharmaceuticals, sciences, engineering and a return to manufacturing. Whilst they are busy with that they are also keen to clamp down on the errant ways that some banks have done business. Much less reliance on the banking sector is the aim, and that is a good thing imo.

Agreed.

[Qwert1e]

I shouldn't fret about that input from Toppstuff. He says exactly the same thing to anyone who disagrees with him on almost any subject. It really is very tedious when, as a newcomer on here, you see the same people trotting out the same old personal attacks over and over again.

[turbobloke]

legzr1 said:

crankedup said:

Government is busy encouraging the pharmaceuticals, sciences, engineering and a return to manufacturing. Whilst they are busy with that they are also keen to clamp down on the errant ways that some banks have done business. Much less reliance on the banking sector is the aim, and that is a good thing imo.

Agreed.

As long as it doesn't do harm anywhere, boosting other sectors is fine if it works well as intended.

Making the finance sector take a hit as part of the unthinking scapegoating exercise begun by Incapability Brown would be stupid.

We'll need to await the next Labour government, hopefully no time soon, to get back to really stupid economics.

[anonymous-user]

crankedup said:

Government is busy encouraging the pharmaceuticals, sciences, engineering and a return to manufacturing. Whilst they are busy with that they are also keen to clamp down on the errant ways that some banks have done business. Much less reliance on the banking sector is the aim, and that is a good thing imo.

Indeed it is, I don't think anyone would try and argue otherwise. The question I have is why did Labour not try and 're-balance the economy' when they were in power with an overwhelming majority? Why is it up to a shoddy coalition government to do so? Secondly I think you would agree the best way to reweight the economy is to build up other industry, not simply destroy financial services (and let them all fvck off to pastures new). There's a smart way to go about this and a dumb way.

[otolith]

We need to diversify our business to spread our risk - great, let's start by sabotaging the successful part of it...

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

We'll need to await the next Labour government, hopefully no time soon, to get back to really stupid economics.

That will be next year then. Sorry

[crankedup]

fblm said:

crankedup said:

Government is busy encouraging the pharmaceuticals, sciences, engineering and a return to manufacturing. Whilst they are busy with that they are also keen to clamp down on the errant ways that some banks have done business. Much less reliance on the banking sector is the aim, and that is a good thing imo.

Indeed it is, I don't think anyone would try and argue otherwise. The question I have is why did Labour not try and 're-balance the economy' when they were in power with an overwhelming majority? Why is it up to a shoddy coalition government to do so? Secondly I think you would agree the best way to reweight the economy is to build up other industry, not simply destroy financial services (and let them all fvck off to pastures new). There's a smart way to go about this and a dumb way.

The drift away from our traditional areas of strength began decades ago, why it was deemed smart to abandon apprenticeships was the last nail in the coffin.
imo the Authorities desperately need to clamp down on errant ways in the finance industry, its deplorable it was left for so long without decent regulation and actions. Now it appears regulation is going over the top and draconian for some. No Government can afford to reside over further banking scandals and the Country cannot afford it either.
Questions regarding the last Labour Government, I agree with you but do not have the answers.

[otolith]

Just substitute "banker's bonuses" for "9-11":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YOh-rpvjYg

[crankedup]

otolith said:

We need to diversify our business to spread our risk - great, let's start by sabotaging the successful part of it...

Those naughty boys and girls within the finance industry have only themselves to blame. How can any Government fail to act upon the revelations of wrongdoing other than to crackdown with regulation and policy changes. It was always going to happen and likely plenty more in the pipeline.

[otolith]

crankedup said:

otolith said:

We need to diversify our business to spread our risk - great, let's start by sabotaging the successful part of it...

Those naughty boys and girls within the finance industry have only themselves to blame. How can any Government fail to act upon the revelations of wrongdoing other than to crackdown with regulation and policy changes. It was always going to happen and likely plenty more in the pipeline.

I don't care whether they have themselves, the regulators or Gordon Brown himself to blame. Making policy which impacts negatively on this country's economy is stupid. People should look at a big bonus and think "great, the tax man has had 45% of that, that's a bit less tax needed from me" instead of "rich bd, I'd drive him to the airport". Just moronic.

[legzr1]

turbobloke said:

As long as it doesn't do harm anywhere, boosting other sectors is fine if it works well as intended.

Making the finance sector take a hit as part of the unthinking scapegoating exercise begun by Incapability Brown would be stupid.

We'll need to await the next Labour government, hopefully no time soon, to get back to really stupid economics.

So, in summary, you agree it's a good thing to move away from over-reliance on the banking sector as long as you can add yet another barbed, anti-Labour quip?

Tell me, did a Labour councillor rape your Labrador or something?

[anonymous-user]

crankedup said:

The drift away from our traditional areas of strength began decades ago, why it was deemed smart to abandon apprenticeships was the last nail in the coffin.
imo the Authorities desperately need to clamp down on errant ways in the finance industry, its deplorable it was left for so long without decent regulation and actions. Now it appears regulation is going over the top and draconian for some. No Government can afford to reside over further banking scandals and the Country cannot afford it either.
Questions regarding the last Labour Government, I agree with you but do not have the answers.

The fact is the constant focus on bonuses will only solve one problem; the public appetite for some kind of revenge, it will not stop wrong doing (people who do this don't expect to get caught), it will not banish boom or bust and increasing banks fixed to variable costs will obviously not make them safer or less cyclical. What it will do is permanently lower your tax base, this is the stupid way to go about fixing the banks.

[legzr1]

turbobloke said:

As long as it doesn't do harm anywhere, boosting other sectors is fine if it works well as intended.

Making the finance sector take a hit as part of the unthinking scapegoating exercise begun by Incapability Brown would be stupid.

We'll need to await the next Labour government, hopefully no time soon, to get back to really stupid economics.

So, in summary, you agree it's a good thing to move away from over-reliance on the banking sector as long as you can add yet another barbed, anti-Labour quip?

Tell me, did a Labour councillor rape your Labrador or something?

[otolith]

fblm said:

What it will do is permanently lower your tax base, this is the stupid way to go about fixing the banks.

But then we're talking about the kind of people who understand the implications of the Laffer curve but think we should raise the top rate anyway on moral grounds.

[toppstuff]

Qwert1e said:

I shouldn't fret about that input from Toppstuff. He says exactly the same thing to anyone who disagrees with him on almost any subject. It really is very tedious when, as a newcomer on here, you see the same people trotting out the same old personal attacks over and over again.

Oh no I don't.

I'm simply not motivated enough. Besides, given that he clearly knows nothing about SPVs it's hardly my fault if he gets caught out.

If the thread was about beer making or carpentry I can assure you I would have nothing to say.

Edited by toppstuff on Friday 1st August 18:26

[DeltonaS]

Qwert1e said:

I shouldn't fret about that input from Toppstuff. He says exactly the same thing to anyone who disagrees with him on almost any subject. It really is very tedious when, as a newcomer on here, you see the same people trotting out the same old personal attacks over and over again.

Personal attacks ?? His organized nonsense ??

He's more Topfluff than Topstuff as far as I'm concerned...

[anonymous-user]

DeltonaS said:

I didn't claim that SPV's were illegal in the US.

DeltonaS said:

Funnily enough it's London that pays these huge bonuses, and it's London where the investment banks of this world were allowed by law and under a laughable regulatory regime to create their off balance SPV's (which wasn't even allowed in capitalist USA), which subsequently led to London's rise as a financial center and the biggest financial crisis to date.

[DeltonaS]

fblm said:

It seems to me that this thread is about carpentry or beer making.......

[mug81]

legzr1 said:

Is that true?

If so, they should have bonuses deferred for at least seven years.

If they don't like it they can make the seamless move to pastures new and fk up that economy.

Win win.

Are you being sarcastic with this comment..? Because if not, it's possibly the most short sighted comment of the entire thread. And that's saying something.