The Unions are going to fight all spending cuts...
Discussion
Devil2575 said:
the economic collapse, which was caused by the banking sector
Gerald Warner: Capitalism didn't kill the banks – socialism didDate: 23 November 2008
AT LAST – the death of capitalism has occurred, as so often predicted by all those rheumy-eyed revolutionaries bumming drinks off students in pubs ("See me, son, ah'm a socialist. Did ye ever read a book called The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists? Magic!"). Zzzz…
The thesis is that the banking system, propelled by the centrifugal force of its own greed, has spun off its axis, as it was always predestined to do through the operation of Marxist historical inevitability, and a new order is arising under which the financial institutions are progressively falling into public ownership. Under the stimulus of this unlooked-for remission, even the moribund Labour Left is sitting up and taking some thin gruel.
Alas for all those ragged-trousered philanthropists holding a mirror hopefully to the nostrils of capitalism, a detailed diagnosis shows that socialism is not the cure but the cause of the malady. The notion that capitalism cannibalised itself is bunkum and the evidence is irrefutable. Amid all the myriad analyses of the financial collapse, one sole premise commands universal assent: the crisis originated in the sub-prime mortgage meltdown in America.
If we establish what caused that, we shall have discovered the root of the banking crisis. Well, that is easy: it was Gordon Gekko and his ilk, was it not? Actually, no: it was Bill Clinton and his cronies, with their politically correct affirmative action. That is the fact of the matter – the Clinton administration compelled the banks to lend to minorities, to comply with racial and social quotas that defied all the rules of banking.
In 1994 the New York Times reported jubilantly that the Clinton administration was leaning heavily on lenders to embrace people in low-income neighbourhoods or minority groups.
From then on, the madness gathered pace. In 1999, pressured by Clinton, Fannie Mae started a programme of extensive expansion of loans to people with low to moderate credit. Clinton's housing secretary Andrew Cuomo warned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that such loans must amount to 50% of their portfolio by 2001. Other government agencies joined the crusade. In 1999 the Justice Department was reported as trying to establish "a system of racial quotas in lending, regardless of credit risk".
Clinton's Federal Reserve compelled banks to accept welfare cheques and unemployment benefit as income sources to qualify for a mortgage. As the PC terror grew, brokers advised clients to claim they were 1% Native American to qualify for loans. These included the lunatic "Ninja" (No income, no job, no assets) loans. The most flagrant example was a $480,000 (£324,000) mortgage to an illegal alien from Mexico.
The scale of the engineered destabilisation of the housing market was astronomic. In 1994 the share of sub-prime mortgages to total origination was 5% ($35bn); by 2006 it had grown to 20% ($600bn). No market could survive subversion on that scale. When the Justice Department is intervening in the housing market, to describe the economy as either "free" or "capitalist" is a bad joke. That was Clinton's legacy. The Oval Office Onanist may have done wonders for the US dry-cleaning industry, but he destroyed the housing market and, by extension, the banking sector.
Yet, today, his party has been mandated by a brain-damaged electorate to cure the disease it caused. Nothing succeeds like failure. The beneficiaries here are Gordon Brown and his interventionist party. People are still talking about the "£37bn bailout". Did they not notice a further £3bn bleeding out of Northern Rock on Friday?
So it will continue. Alistair Darling ordering banks how to conduct their business; banks hoarding taxpayers' money while charging exorbitant rates; HBOS dying noisily. All the testosterone-charged takeover frenzy of the past decade, with bankers borrowing zillions to buy institutions they could not afford, has come home to roost. This was not capitalism, but a dependency culture. For many, addictive dependency shifted from state handouts to private handouts based on phantom credit.
Those proclaiming the death of capitalism have misread the situation...
turbobloke said:
Devil2575 said:
the economic collapse, which was caused by the banking sector
Gerald Warner: Capitalism didn't kill the banks – socialism didDate: 23 November 2008
AT LAST – the death of capitalism has occurred, as so often predicted by all those rheumy-eyed revolutionaries bumming drinks off students in pubs ("See me, son, ah'm a socialist. Did ye ever read a book called The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists? Magic!"). Zzzz…
The thesis is that the banking system, propelled by the centrifugal force of its own greed, has spun off its axis, as it was always predestined to do through the operation of Marxist historical inevitability, and a new order is arising under which the financial institutions are progressively falling into public ownership. Under the stimulus of this unlooked-for remission, even the moribund Labour Left is sitting up and taking some thin gruel.
Alas for all those ragged-trousered philanthropists holding a mirror hopefully to the nostrils of capitalism, a detailed diagnosis shows that socialism is not the cure but the cause of the malady. The notion that capitalism cannibalised itself is bunkum and the evidence is irrefutable. Amid all the myriad analyses of the financial collapse, one sole premise commands universal assent: the crisis originated in the sub-prime mortgage meltdown in America.
If we establish what caused that, we shall have discovered the root of the banking crisis. Well, that is easy: it was Gordon Gekko and his ilk, was it not? Actually, no: it was Bill Clinton and his cronies, with their politically correct affirmative action. That is the fact of the matter – the Clinton administration compelled the banks to lend to minorities, to comply with racial and social quotas that defied all the rules of banking.
In 1994 the New York Times reported jubilantly that the Clinton administration was leaning heavily on lenders to embrace people in low-income neighbourhoods or minority groups.
From then on, the madness gathered pace. In 1999, pressured by Clinton, Fannie Mae started a programme of extensive expansion of loans to people with low to moderate credit. Clinton's housing secretary Andrew Cuomo warned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that such loans must amount to 50% of their portfolio by 2001. Other government agencies joined the crusade. In 1999 the Justice Department was reported as trying to establish "a system of racial quotas in lending, regardless of credit risk".
Clinton's Federal Reserve compelled banks to accept welfare cheques and unemployment benefit as income sources to qualify for a mortgage. As the PC terror grew, brokers advised clients to claim they were 1% Native American to qualify for loans. These included the lunatic "Ninja" (No income, no job, no assets) loans. The most flagrant example was a $480,000 (£324,000) mortgage to an illegal alien from Mexico.
The scale of the engineered destabilisation of the housing market was astronomic. In 1994 the share of sub-prime mortgages to total origination was 5% ($35bn); by 2006 it had grown to 20% ($600bn). No market could survive subversion on that scale. When the Justice Department is intervening in the housing market, to describe the economy as either "free" or "capitalist" is a bad joke. That was Clinton's legacy. The Oval Office Onanist may have done wonders for the US dry-cleaning industry, but he destroyed the housing market and, by extension, the banking sector.
Yet, today, his party has been mandated by a brain-damaged electorate to cure the disease it caused. Nothing succeeds like failure. The beneficiaries here are Gordon Brown and his interventionist party. People are still talking about the "£37bn bailout". Did they not notice a further £3bn bleeding out of Northern Rock on Friday?
So it will continue. Alistair Darling ordering banks how to conduct their business; banks hoarding taxpayers' money while charging exorbitant rates; HBOS dying noisily. All the testosterone-charged takeover frenzy of the past decade, with bankers borrowing zillions to buy institutions they could not afford, has come home to roost. This was not capitalism, but a dependency culture. For many, addictive dependency shifted from state handouts to private handouts based on phantom credit.
Those proclaiming the death of capitalism have misread the situation...
When the socialist enforced structure collapsed due to them wanting booze, drugs, etc rather than pay the mortgage given to them by the socialist government the bubble burst.
yet they see it as the fault of the banks for lending it to them... seems they are still owed something by a society they dont support.
Devil2575 said:
Clinton isn't a sociallist...
not even from this:http://www.clintonmemoriallibrary.com/socialist_ag...
or this:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=769
Devil2575 said:
Clinton isn't a sociallist...
Which one?
In any case, if that was all you could muster - tilt, game over.
Dupont666 said:
yet they see it as the fault of the banks for lending it to them... seems they are still owed something by a society they dont support.
Sure - in this make-believe world of fiscal fantasy and social claptrap it's always somebody else's fault.
Devil2575 said:
The bank bail out has been estimated to cost us about 850 billion in the long run.
"Government support for Britain's banks has reached a staggering £850bn and the eventual cost to taxpayers will not be known for years" - the independent.i see what you did there... lamely twisted wording; very clever in a new labour kind of way. do you believe your own spin? ffs i can't even be bothered to explain it any more.
Devil2575 said:
fbrs said:
i dont know a single person in the public sector, does that mean it doesnt exist? i don't recall ever mentioning non jobs anyway.
No, it just makes it very easy for you and others to be very glib about people who are about to be made redundant.Edited by fbrs on Wednesday 19th May 02:47
FunkyGibbon said:
Having been involved in a number of public sector redundancies (administering them not subject to) the figure of £50K pay out is not an accurate picture of what actually happens in my experience.
The cost of the redundancy will be a theoretical maximum (currently) of £11400 (20 years max. taken into account and 65 years old at time of redundancy). We offer no enhanced redundancy terms, so statutory maximum of £380 per qualifying week is used.
In a real world examples this averages out as a max of approx £5, often much less.
Now, there will also be notice pay due if you require them to leave without working their notice. This may by typically 1 or up to 3 months.
But this isn't extra cost as you'd be paying this anyway if you did not make the role redundant. And if you didn't need them anyway - you lose nothing by letting them go early.
Redundancies can therefore very quickly recover their costs.
Hurrah.The cost of the redundancy will be a theoretical maximum (currently) of £11400 (20 years max. taken into account and 65 years old at time of redundancy). We offer no enhanced redundancy terms, so statutory maximum of £380 per qualifying week is used.
In a real world examples this averages out as a max of approx £5, often much less.
Now, there will also be notice pay due if you require them to leave without working their notice. This may by typically 1 or up to 3 months.
But this isn't extra cost as you'd be paying this anyway if you did not make the role redundant. And if you didn't need them anyway - you lose nothing by letting them go early.
Redundancies can therefore very quickly recover their costs.
People, we possibly have some facts here. Let's not scare him off!
B17NNS said:
Tony*T3 said:
PistonHeaders will be the first complaining next winter when theres no one out gritting the roads or repairing potholes etc.
So absolutely no change then 
Nobody gritted the roads last winter and nobody was repairing the potholes this Spring.
So nothing changes but the country saves a s
t load of cash.I believe that is what they call win-win non?
Olivera said:
FunkyGibbon said:
Having been involved in a number of public sector redundancies (administering them not subject to) the figure of £50K pay out is not an accurate picture of what actually happens in my experience.
The cost of the redundancy will be a theoretical maximum (currently) of £11400 (20 years max. taken into account and 65 years old at time of redundancy). We offer no enhanced redundancy terms, so statutory maximum of £380 per qualifying week is used.
In a real world examples this averages out as a max of approx £5, often much less.
Now, there will also be notice pay due if you require them to leave without working their notice. This may by typically 1 or up to 3 months.
But this isn't extra cost as you'd be paying this anyway if you did not make the role redundant. And if you didn't need them anyway - you lose nothing by letting them go early.
Redundancies can therefore very quickly recover their costs.
You have those figures totally and completely wrong. We are talking about the public sector (government) here, not private or statutory redundancy. As I stated in an earlier post, statutory redundancy legislation does not cover public sector workers, they fall under the Civil Service Compensation Scheme. The cost of the redundancy will be a theoretical maximum (currently) of £11400 (20 years max. taken into account and 65 years old at time of redundancy). We offer no enhanced redundancy terms, so statutory maximum of £380 per qualifying week is used.
In a real world examples this averages out as a max of approx £5, often much less.
Now, there will also be notice pay due if you require them to leave without working their notice. This may by typically 1 or up to 3 months.
But this isn't extra cost as you'd be paying this anyway if you did not make the role redundant. And if you didn't need them anyway - you lose nothing by letting them go early.
Redundancies can therefore very quickly recover their costs.
You seem to assume that public sector only equates to Government and Civil Servants - this is not the case. I'd suggest that most public sector employees are not covered by the Civil Service Compensation Scheme as most are not Civil Servants or work in government. This is where most of the redundancies will occur the so called front line.
But other than that you are spot on.
turbobloke said:
Devil2575 said:
Clinton isn't a sociallist...
In any case, if that was all you could muster - tilt, game over.Ok, lets accept just for a minute that the article you posted from a right wing journallist is 100% true and that the sub prime market in the US is all Clinton's fault. The US government made the US banks lend to people who were going to default. No wiggle room, they forced them to lend to people who couldn't afford to pay. Funny, banks in the UK have also being doing this without any pressure from government. Did the government force Northern Rock to lend to people who couldn't afford to pay? Did the government force our banks to lend on the basis of self certified income or on the basis of 5, 6 ,7 or even 8 times salary?
But anyway, lets go with the premise that the article is entirely true.
How then did this problem spread from country to country? Is it perhaps that the banks parcelled up packages of bad debts and sold them on to other banks, who then sold them on again. The end result being a bank halfway across the other side of the world holding a debt package that it didn't really understand.
So even if you accuse the Clinton administration of causing the problem in the US you can't blame them for the world wide economic collapse.
fbrs said:
No, it just makes it very easy for you and others to be very glib about people who are about to be made redundant.
WTF? i have not been glib about anyone losing their job. i agreed with you previously "100%" ffs. save your self rightous indignation for someone else.
Applogies if I have accused you of something others have done. It's not always easy to keep track of who has said what.WTF? i have not been glib about anyone losing their job. i agreed with you previously "100%" ffs. save your self rightous indignation for someone else.
Edited by Devil2575 on Wednesday 19th May 09:28
fbrs said:
[
i see what you did there... lamely twisted wording; very clever in a new labour kind of way. do you believe your own spin? ffs i can't even be bothered to explain it any more.
I didn't twist any wording I simply quoted a news paper article. Besides, I already admitted I got my wires crossed. i see what you did there... lamely twisted wording; very clever in a new labour kind of way. do you believe your own spin? ffs i can't even be bothered to explain it any more.
Edited by fbrs on Wednesday 19th May 02:47
B17NNS said:
Tony*T3 said:
PistonHeaders will be the first complaining next winter when theres no one out gritting the roads or repairing potholes etc.
So absolutely no change then Nobody gritted the roads last winter and nobody was repairing the potholes this Spring.
So nothing changes but the country saves a s
t load of cash.I believe that is what they call win-win non?
FunkyGibbon said:
Sorry I have not got the figures totally and completely wrong thank you very much for the public sector area I work in (Local Authority based).
You seem to assume that public sector only equates to Government and Civil Servants - this is not the case. I'd suggest that most public sector employees are not covered by the Civil Service Compensation Scheme as most are not Civil Servants or work in government. This is where most of the redundancies will occur the so called front line.
But other than that you are spot on.
Within your own LA you obviously have a better view the redundancy rights and each and every Public sector Arms lenght body (those who are not basically a direct part of a Civil Service Departments) will employ people on their own T&C's. However you cannot deny that in recent year there has been in a significant number of cases where increases in the severance packages on average across these bodies has been pushed by Unions with an aim to equalise severance benefit across the public sector.You seem to assume that public sector only equates to Government and Civil Servants - this is not the case. I'd suggest that most public sector employees are not covered by the Civil Service Compensation Scheme as most are not Civil Servants or work in government. This is where most of the redundancies will occur the so called front line.
But other than that you are spot on.
I also disagree that the largest cuts will come on from the front line LA's. They'll just increase Council tax to cover their needs. It will come from the areas where significant policy changes mean less staff to administer programmes probably DWP, HM treasury, HRMC, DoH and DoE.
Devil2575 said:
How then did this problem spread from country to country?
You're now confusing sovereign debt with corporate debt. Take for example Greece - they spent too much - it's as simple as that. Similarly for the UK, the government spend £600bn a year, which is more than it earns by about £80bn. You can't blame the Banks, the Tories, Rubert Murdoch or anyone else for out structural defecit - we need to make cuts or the IMF will sort it out.fido said:
Devil2575 said:
How then did this problem spread from country to country?
You're now confusing sovereign debt with corporate debt.One of the reasons we have a deficit is that government income has dropped due to the failure of UK campanies due either directly or indirectly to the banking crisis/recession. If the only banks that had failed had been in the US and other countries banks had not bought into these bad debts/created their own bad debts then the situation would have been a lot better.
Don said:
OneDs said:
The public sector is by far in Base Salary and Bonus terms, in a like for like job paid less than equivalent role in the private sector.
After 13 years of arguing that the public sector needed to attract the best talent and so needed parity with private sector appointments COUPLED with the private sector desperately needing to drive costs out of the business this is no longer true.OneDs said:
Get over it, no amount of spurious tabloid journalism and misguided statistics will change this.
OK. We need some hard facts. Time for some Googling. Source = HayPayNet (A well respected reward data source in the private & public sector)
Lets take a generic obviously benchmarkable and comparable role (probably viewed as a pen pusher non-job = HR Manager at the same job evaluation weight grade/score. in other words a like for like job.)
Ownership = Government (every other filter = all, region size etc)
Total Cash (Base + actual bonus)
Median 48040
Average 48545
No of Incumbents 42
No of Companies 16
Now lets change the Ownerhip filter
Ownership = UK Private, UK Listed, Subsidary & Foreign Owned (every other filter all)
Total Cash (Base + actual bonus)
Median 54226
Average 56352
No of Incumbents 498
No of Companies 100
Now there are even greater differences at the higher percentiles and even very slightly lower amounts at the lower percentiles, however you would expect a wider range of data from the greater populated private sector.
What is clear however is they are paid on average terms 13% - 16% less in the Public sector.
Edited by OneDs on Wednesday 19th May 12:03
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff