How much could we make out of RBS?
Discussion
Please quantify how you subsidise me!?
Also you guys are arguing from a point of failure and acceptance that socialism saved you.
Thats pathetic. I accept the UK is socialist in nature, but I don't believe it is optimal. What are the opportunity costs!?
Anyway I didn't say anything about not guaranteeing deposits. I think thats fair.
You can argue until you are blue in the face that the banks should have been saved, you wont convince me. I have no interest either way as I don't work in the banking industry and I have not been affected negatively. You cannot say the same. I am arguing from a point of principle. You are not.
Also you guys are arguing from a point of failure and acceptance that socialism saved you.
Thats pathetic. I accept the UK is socialist in nature, but I don't believe it is optimal. What are the opportunity costs!?
Anyway I didn't say anything about not guaranteeing deposits. I think thats fair.
You can argue until you are blue in the face that the banks should have been saved, you wont convince me. I have no interest either way as I don't work in the banking industry and I have not been affected negatively. You cannot say the same. I am arguing from a point of principle. You are not.
So we see now some things are coming to pass, the Capitalists become the socialists. How very interesting, sad and pathetic. You guys have confirmed his theory. Welcome to the socialist republic of UK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Schumpeter
"Schumpeter's most popular book in English is probably Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. This book opens with a treatment of Karl Marx. While he is sympathetic to Marx's theory that capitalism will collapse and will be replaced by socialism, Schumpeter concludes that this will not come about in the way Marx predicted. To describe it he borrowed the phrase "creative destruction", and made it famous by using it to describe a process in which the old ways of doing things are endogenously destroyed and replaced by new ways.
Schumpeter's theory is that the success of capitalism will lead to a form of corporatism and a fostering of values hostile to capitalism, especially among intellectuals. The intellectual and social climate needed to allow entrepreneurship to thrive will not exist in advanced capitalism; it will be replaced by socialism in some form. There will not be a revolution, but merely a trend in parliaments to elect social democratic parties of one stripe or another. He argued that capitalism's collapse from within will come about as democratic majorities vote for restrictions upon entrepreneurship that will burden and destroy the capitalist structure, but also emphasizes non-political, evolutionary processes in society where "liberal capitalism" was evolving into democratic socialism because of the growth of workers' self-management, industrial democracy and regulatory institutions.[8] Schumpeter emphasizes throughout this book that he is analyzing trends, not engaging in political advocacy. In his vision, the intellectual class will play an important role in capitalism's demise. The term "intellectuals" denotes a class of persons in a position to develop critiques of societal matters for which they are not directly responsible and able to stand up for the interests of strata to which they themselves do not belong. One of the great advantages of capitalism, he argues, is that as compared with pre-capitalist periods, when education was a privilege of the few, more and more people acquire (higher) education."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Schumpeter
"Schumpeter's most popular book in English is probably Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. This book opens with a treatment of Karl Marx. While he is sympathetic to Marx's theory that capitalism will collapse and will be replaced by socialism, Schumpeter concludes that this will not come about in the way Marx predicted. To describe it he borrowed the phrase "creative destruction", and made it famous by using it to describe a process in which the old ways of doing things are endogenously destroyed and replaced by new ways.
Schumpeter's theory is that the success of capitalism will lead to a form of corporatism and a fostering of values hostile to capitalism, especially among intellectuals. The intellectual and social climate needed to allow entrepreneurship to thrive will not exist in advanced capitalism; it will be replaced by socialism in some form. There will not be a revolution, but merely a trend in parliaments to elect social democratic parties of one stripe or another. He argued that capitalism's collapse from within will come about as democratic majorities vote for restrictions upon entrepreneurship that will burden and destroy the capitalist structure, but also emphasizes non-political, evolutionary processes in society where "liberal capitalism" was evolving into democratic socialism because of the growth of workers' self-management, industrial democracy and regulatory institutions.[8] Schumpeter emphasizes throughout this book that he is analyzing trends, not engaging in political advocacy. In his vision, the intellectual class will play an important role in capitalism's demise. The term "intellectuals" denotes a class of persons in a position to develop critiques of societal matters for which they are not directly responsible and able to stand up for the interests of strata to which they themselves do not belong. One of the great advantages of capitalism, he argues, is that as compared with pre-capitalist periods, when education was a privilege of the few, more and more people acquire (higher) education."
ringram said:
Please quantify how you subsidise me!?.
By paying 51% on the vast majority of my pay, so that you can get away with paying less.Despite what you might have come to believe, we don't, and can't dodge our full tax bill, and it is damned close to half of my entire pay packet.
It's fine, someone has to pay, and subsidize folks like you who can't pay as much, but it's strange when you deny that it's happening.
Edited to add, if you really don't want socialism, how about you either start paying the same percentage tax as me, or even go the whole hog and pony up the same number of pounds?
Until you do, please, spare us the poorly argued complaints about socialism.
Edited by NorthernBoy on Monday 29th November 21:44
ringram said:
Please quantify how you subsidise me!?
Also you guys are arguing from a point of failure and acceptance that socialism saved you.
Thats pathetic. I accept the UK is socialist in nature, but I don't believe it is optimal. What are the opportunity costs!?
Anyway I didn't say anything about not guaranteeing deposits. I think thats fair.
You can argue until you are blue in the face that the banks should have been saved, you wont convince me. I have no interest either way as I don't work in the banking industry and I have not been affected negatively. You cannot say the same. I am arguing from a point of principle. You are not.
Isn't it the ultimate state of Capitalism when you can force taxpayers to re-capitalise you?Also you guys are arguing from a point of failure and acceptance that socialism saved you.
Thats pathetic. I accept the UK is socialist in nature, but I don't believe it is optimal. What are the opportunity costs!?
Anyway I didn't say anything about not guaranteeing deposits. I think thats fair.
You can argue until you are blue in the face that the banks should have been saved, you wont convince me. I have no interest either way as I don't work in the banking industry and I have not been affected negatively. You cannot say the same. I am arguing from a point of principle. You are not.
I'm not convinced that the bail-out was an act of Socialism, they weren't nationalised, they are still independent. The Govt chose to re-finance the banks so as to save the UK from bankruptcy and the decimation of the nation's savings and the method they chose was to use the tax recipts of the next 3 working generations which in turn has been underwritten using equity stakes which will ultimately return more to the State then lent (not that the taxpayer will get any of it back in real terms).
So really, it's a corporate equity deal by a soveriegn fund.
Now, my view is that the re-financing should have been carried out a different way that led to the two Scottish banks no longer existing and breaking up and shifting the underwritten assets into other organisations. However, as has been pointed out, if we look back to October 2008 the West was about to end.
All the bail out proves is that capitalism is greater than socialism.
NorthernBoy said:
ringram said:
Please quantify how you subsidise me!?.
By paying 51% on the vast majority of my pay, so that you can get away with paying less.Despite what you might have come to believe, we don't, and can't dodge our full tax bill, and it is damned close to half of my entire pay packet.
It's fine, someone has to pay, and subsidize folks like you who can't pay as much, but it's strange when you deny that it's happening.
Edited to add, if you really don't want socialism, how about you either start paying the same percentage tax as me, or even go the whole hog and pony up the same number of pounds?
Until you do, please, spare us the poorly argued complaints about socialism.
I know full well that the top 1% pay 12% of the tax take etc. You arnt the only one in that bracket!
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff