The looney left

[crankedup]

Andy Zarse said:

crankedup said:

sidicks said:

NicD said:

You have your own ideas about responsibility, presumably you are in some way involved in City activities but don't presume we are all in agreement or know nothing about the subject.
I have no interest in a long running and fruitless debate.

You can't just ignore recorded facts if you don't like the implications!!

Having just returned from sunny climes its good to see the age old debate still raises its head occasionally.

I always considered the few remaining Mutual B.S. to be an ethical haven for my few pennies. Now looking at the C.E.O. salary at Nationwide B.S. it would appear that they are learning how to pig trough. Time to close accounts me thinks.

I'm sure a few years ago you admitted to carpet-bagging your previous mutuals. No luck this time huh?!

Absolutely I was a 'carpetbagger', would have been churlish not to have been, after all most of the old Mutuals bit the dust. Nationwide was different for me, I was daft enough to be loyal time served member. something I now regret.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

Indeed Sidicks, indeed. Fairly well destroyed my faith and confidence in all financial institutions, certainly the Co-Op. Looking at investment rates and the conduct of so many 'professionals' within these institutions the alternative investments have been offering far higher returns, albeit riskier.

The trouble is that people think that higher risk equals higher returns, when in fact it is higher risk equals the potential for higher returns (but also the potential for lower (negative) returns too!

Never a truer word. As a matter of general interest, we know that a good spread of investment over the three low, medium and high risk categories is a sensible 'code of conduct'for most investors. Do you know of any formula of percentages within these categories deemed to be 'the average' or is it purely the individuals aversion to risk that is the guide to those percentages?

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

Never a truer word. As a matter of general interest, we know that a good spread of investment over the three low, medium and high risk categories is a sensible 'code of conduct'for most investors. Do you know of any formula of percentages within these categories deemed to be 'the average' or is it purely the individuals aversion to risk that is the guide to those percentages?

The ability to predict short-term (1-year) returns for most asset classes is next to zero, even for the best asset management houses with massive resources, so trying to put any science around this is nonsense.

What you can do is construct a portfolio to:
- Reduce the volatility / increase certainty of return
- Provide increase diversification
- mitigate downside scenarios

'Risk' itself is an ambiguous metric as it can mean different things to different people and people often confuse risk with uncertainty when they are not the same thing.

[Andy Zarse]

crankedup said:

Andy Zarse said:

crankedup said:

sidicks said:

NicD said:

You have your own ideas about responsibility, presumably you are in some way involved in City activities but don't presume we are all in agreement or know nothing about the subject.
I have no interest in a long running and fruitless debate.

You can't just ignore recorded facts if you don't like the implications!!

Having just returned from sunny climes its good to see the age old debate still raises its head occasionally.

I always considered the few remaining Mutual B.S. to be an ethical haven for my few pennies. Now looking at the C.E.O. salary at Nationwide B.S. it would appear that they are learning how to pig trough. Time to close accounts me thinks.

I'm sure a few years ago you admitted to carpet-bagging your previous mutuals. No luck this time huh?!

Absolutely I was a 'carpetbagger', would have been churlish not to have been, after all most of the old Mutuals bit the dust. Nationwide was different for me, I was daft enough to be loyal time served member. something I now regret.

Don't beat yourself up, the times they are a changin'! I dare say you had a good run and typically their saver rates have been amongst the highest. If you want higher, how about having a look at accounts with the Bank of Baroda or Punjab National who have the top ISA Instant Access rate?

[legzr1]

sidicks said:

Or when it's a genuine mistake that doesn't affect the argument to any great degree, confirm that Jimbo0912 was talking bks.

HTH

Lol.

A point was trying to be made using specific figures.

The figures were wrong.

A self-proclaimedd financial powerhouse, keen to mock those without this knowledge then defends the post as a 'mistake'.


Yeah, the financial mess is all down to Labour isn't it?

[turbobloke]

legzr1 said:

sidicks said:

Or when it's a genuine mistake that doesn't affect the argument to any great degree, confirm that Jimbo0912 was talking bks.

HTH

Lol.

A point was trying to be made using specific figures.

The figures were wrong.

A self-proclaimed financial powerhouse, keen to mock those without this knowledge then defends the post as a 'mistake'.

Yeah, the financial mess is all down to Labour isn't it?

Use of "all" for effect gives the straw man game away. And what's wrong is wrong.

From what I've read, and as I've posted, Labour made the UK's situation far worse by not (as they say) mending the roof while the sun was shining. Instead, around 2001/2, Brown reverted to type by resuming tax-and-spunk.

As a result of having less room for manoeuvre when recession beckoned we went in early and came out late. Then, after Labour left the building with Liam Byrne's laconic note "there is no money left" immortalising Labour's latest show of incompetence, there was in fact no double dip and no triple dip.

Under The Boy George's Plan A, the UK has long passed the pre-recession peak, the FTSE has broken through 7000 for the first time, and private sector job growth is soaring with an appropriate reduction in public sector dead weight - with the economy and jobs overall doing so well. Given that Balls and Vince were calling for Plan B of one pointless form or another we can only hope neither gets anywhere near Number 11.

[legzr1]

That'll be a 'yes' then...

[sidicks]

legzr1 said:

Lol.

A point was trying to be made using specific figures.

The figures were wrong.

Indeed - the point is still adequately proved, however.

legzr1 said:

A self-proclaimedd financial powerhouse, keen to mock those without this knowledge then defends the post as a 'mistake'.

I've made no such claim about myself, but compared to you I'm sure other people would consider me a 'financial powerhouse'!

The conversation rate from GBP to USD was clearly a mistake which had next to zero impact on the point being made to refute the stupid claims made by the previous poster. I wouldn't expect you to understand that though.

legzr1 said:

Yeah, the financial mess is all down to Labour isn't it?

No one (as far as I'm aware) has claimed such a thing. Shane you don't understand these simple details, but of course this has been explained to you (many times) before, so I guess we should put it down to deliberate misrepresentation rather than the normal ignorance.

Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 31st March 13:49

[Cheese Mechanic]

legzr1 said:

Yeah, the financial mess is all down to Labour isn't it?

It is indeed, Brown's fiscal policies decimated our economy and ruined finacial institutions. We will be paying for his crass ineptitude for many years to come. Labour inherited a stable well managed economy in 1997, they destroyed it.

There are several who should be in prison for their fiscal incompetence, Brown at the top of the pile.

Edited by Cheese Mechanic on Tuesday 31st March 13:56

[turbobloke]

legzr1 said:

That'll be a 'yes' then...

It's a no in that it's not "all" Labour's fault, they just made things a lot worse than they might have been. Clinton's egalitarian delusion via HUD and mandated non-recourse ninja mortgages - over many years - represented a core problem, but there were many other parties contributing to the crunch and crash from that point on, so it's also not "all" Clinton's fault either. In the UK the job losses that followed were more than need have occurred if Winky had kept up his relationship with Prudence aka Tory economic policy.

It's typical of the ideological snafus and economic nonsense we get from the left field. People accepted offers of bloated public sector jobs under Bliar and Brown and expected them to last...unwise to say the least, when they were paid for on an already maxed national credit card. Almost as bad as fake 'green' jobs which destroy between 2 and 4 real jobs. That's another dead-end route the left also likes to champion.

Anyone taking such employment should have realised the nature of what they were doing. Credit card bills arrive eventually and likewise the unaffordable green subsidies were bound to fade away. The least Labour could have done was make the health warning explicit, but that would have blown their cover on having even half a clue in government not only to their more competent opponents but also to their hoodwinked supporters.

[princealbert23]

turbobloke said:

From what I've read, and as I've posted, Labour made the UK's situation far worse by not (as they say) mending the roof while the sun was shining. Instead, around 2001/2, Brown reverted to type by resuming tax-and-spunk.

[NoNeed]

Mean while Labours elect pin up boy is a tax dodger. http://order-order.com/2015/03/30/tax-dodge-shame-...

[turbobloke]

princealbert23 said:

turbobloke said:

From what I've read, and as I've posted, Labour made the UK's situation far worse by not (as they say) mending the roof while the sun was shining. Instead, around 2001/2, Brown reverted to type by resuming tax-and-spunk.

Thanks for posting the folly of 2001-2007 in chart form ^

[legzr1]

turbobloke said:

It's a no in that it's not "all" Labour's fault

Thanks for that

sidicks said:

I've made no such claim about myself, but compared to you I'm sure other people would consider me a 'financial powerhouse'!

Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 31st March 13:49

Ha, he does irony too!

Too funny - my name isn't 'Shane' so I'm guessing that's another 'mistake' in an already-edited post defending someone else using 'mistaken' figures to prove a point.

Doesn't your day job rely on accuracy?

[Ali G]

turbobloke said:

From what I've read, and as I've posted, Labour made the UK's situation far worse by not (as they say) mending the roof while the sun was shining. Instead, around 2001/2, Brown reverted to type by resuming tax-and-spunk.

Tax-and-spunk?

Presumably based upon Keynesian economic theory?

Which does not qualify as an hypothesis.

Since economics is more aligned to astrology, or alchemy as a discipline.

But as 'experiments' go - Broons Keynesian experiment should be considered to be a 'FAIL'

[sidicks]

legzr1 said:

Ha, he does irony too!

Too funny - my name isn't 'Shane' so I'm guessing that's another 'mistake' in an already-edited post defending someone else using 'mistaken' figures to prove a point.

Oh no, a typo, how will I ever live with myself...?

legzr1 said:

Doesn't your day job rely on accuracy?

Indeed - that's why I take great care over client work, compared with random postings on an Internet forum putting people (who haven't the faintest idea what they are talking about) in their places.

Once again, I suggest you steer clear of the economics discussions and leave it to those who know what they're talking about...

Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 31st March 17:37

[crankedup]

Andy Zarse said:

crankedup said:

Andy Zarse said:

crankedup said:

sidicks said:

NicD said:

You have your own ideas about responsibility, presumably you are in some way involved in City activities but don't presume we are all in agreement or know nothing about the subject.
I have no interest in a long running and fruitless debate.

You can't just ignore recorded facts if you don't like the implications!!

Having just returned from sunny climes its good to see the age old debate still raises its head occasionally.

I always considered the few remaining Mutual B.S. to be an ethical haven for my few pennies. Now looking at the C.E.O. salary at Nationwide B.S. it would appear that they are learning how to pig trough. Time to close accounts me thinks.

I'm sure a few years ago you admitted to carpet-bagging your previous mutuals. No luck this time huh?!

Absolutely I was a 'carpetbagger', would have been churlish not to have been, after all most of the old Mutuals bit the dust. Nationwide was different for me, I was daft enough to be loyal time served member. something I now regret.

Don't beat yourself up, the times they are a changin'! I dare say you had a good run and typically their saver rates have been amongst the highest. If you want higher, how about having a look at accounts with the Bank of Baroda or Punjab National who have the top ISA Instant Access rate?

Have to admit they are new to me will have a look. Was thinking about going back to National Counties or as they were known back in the day 'The National Post Office B.S.' That would be going back to where we started, they were very good and gave us our first mortgage when others said no! Only because Pop was a Post Office worker did they offer us the loan. Even then the Chief loans officer telephoned us asking 'are you absolutely sure you can afford this mortgage'! Personal service, happy days!!

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

Never a truer word. As a matter of general interest, we know that a good spread of investment over the three low, medium and high risk categories is a sensible 'code of conduct'for most investors. Do you know of any formula of percentages within these categories deemed to be 'the average' or is it purely the individuals aversion to risk that is the guide to those percentages?

The ability to predict short-term (1-year) returns for most asset classes is next to zero, even for the best asset management houses with massive resources, so trying to put any science around this is nonsense.

What you can do is construct a portfolio to:
- Reduce the volatility / increase certainty of return
- Provide increase diversification
- mitigate downside scenarios

'Risk' itself is an ambiguous metric as it can mean different things to different people and people often confuse risk with uncertainty when they are not the same thing.

Yes diversity is not just about immigration I suppose.

[crankedup]

turbobloke said:

legzr1 said:

sidicks said:

Or when it's a genuine mistake that doesn't affect the argument to any great degree, confirm that Jimbo0912 was talking bks.

HTH

Lol.

A point was trying to be made using specific figures.

The figures were wrong.

A self-proclaimed financial powerhouse, keen to mock those without this knowledge then defends the post as a 'mistake'.

Yeah, the financial mess is all down to Labour isn't it?

Use of "all" for effect gives the straw man game away. And what's wrong is wrong.

From what I've read, and as I've posted, Labour made the UK's situation far worse by not (as they say) mending the roof while the sun was shining. Instead, around 2001/2, Brown reverted to type by resuming tax-and-spunk.

As a result of having less room for manoeuvre when recession beckoned we went in early and came out late. Then, after Labour left the building with Liam Byrne's laconic note "there is no money left" immortalising Labour's latest show of incompetence, there was in fact no double dip and no triple dip.

Under The Boy George's Plan A, the UK has long passed the pre-recession peak, the FTSE has broken through 7000 for the first time, and private sector job growth is soaring with an appropriate reduction in public sector dead weight - with the economy and jobs overall doing so well. Given that Balls and Vince were calling for Plan B of one pointless form or another we can only hope neither gets anywhere near Number 11.

I was one of the 'Plan B' protagonists at the time and I still do reflect upon the 'what if' scenario if the alternative had been introduced. For me investment into our infrastructure would have kick-started a recovery far quicker by producing jobs and tax take (not Public Sector jobs). We will never know of course but I am content that at least we have a recovery under way now.

[Ovaltine]

Didn't the French go for plan B? How's it going for them?