UK Future
- Thread starter Modernist
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
RogerS
Established Member
Digit":2kccjeoa said:
You are both correct. Digit is talking about the retail side of the bank. Brian is talking about the wholesale/investment part of the banking system and he is absolutely spot on...it was invented financial instruments such as CDS's, CDO's, derivatives and the rest of the whole stinking mess.
Even the retail arm of the banks have their bad points. Notice how high that fine was at HSBC for selling wrong policies to OAPs. You can bet your bottom dollar that the staff, directors and managers etc in the bank who got their bonuses for meeting targets selling these policies won't be asked to pay them back. And then there was PPI, Standard Life endowment ponzi schemes, Equitable Life...it is endless.
But to let a bank go to the wall is just plain daft. It's a house of cards and the whole lot will come down around our ears. How are you going to explain to the retired population that their pensions are now zero, allylearm ? Which reminds me......in another thread on Public Sector strikes, you quite clearly stated that you had 'done the maths' and I asked you four times to show us. So come on and 'fess up. You were telling porkies, weren't you?
Losos
Established Member
RogerS":1ymcsejl said:
Your wife is absolutely right, there is a basic flaw in the way the Euro was set up, and it will only survive if the one country with a surplus (Germany) transfers about 2 billion Euro to the deficit countries (Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Italy etc) every year, FOR EVER !!!! apart from Germany the lack of competiveness in the rest of Europe is endemic and it has always been that way.(For the purposes of this post you can consider Holland and Denmark as part of Germany :wink: )
There is a precedent for this however as there is a one federal state (which is geographically in Europe) and comprises of four countries where one of them has always transfered large amounts to the other three and will continue to do so for ever more. I'm sure your wife will be able to tell you the name of that federation :lol: :lol:
Specifically Rog I was thinking of Brian's empty housing estates in Ireland, houses that were built speculatively.
Here I put on my history teacher's hat on.
Some of the most desirable properties in England are those semi detached houses built between the wars.
At the time they were classed as 'Jerry Built' by the purists as they widely used cavity walls, this permitted the use of 'stretcher bond' brick laying.
Much quicker than traditional bonds and more economic of bricks.
They were promoted thoughout the south by the London Underground as 'Metro Land', the first of the commuter belts.
And they were all built speculatively!
And to clarify the point further, all the local building here other than 'self builds' are speculative.
Roy.
Here I put on my history teacher's hat on.
Some of the most desirable properties in England are those semi detached houses built between the wars.
At the time they were classed as 'Jerry Built' by the purists as they widely used cavity walls, this permitted the use of 'stretcher bond' brick laying.
Much quicker than traditional bonds and more economic of bricks.
They were promoted thoughout the south by the London Underground as 'Metro Land', the first of the commuter belts.
And they were all built speculatively!
And to clarify the point further, all the local building here other than 'self builds' are speculative.
Roy.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Being lazy again - here's my lazy theory of economics for slobs.
Not much difference in the real world, from the Monopoly board game. The game goes on and as long as everybody has a hand in it it's OK.
But when too many houses or too much cash ends up in too few hands, the game slows down or stops. To get it going again you have to share out the cash and the property a bit. If anybody wanted to hang on to their wealth (monopoly money and little wooden houses etc) the rest can just go off and play another game, but unfortunately, not in the real world. In the real world, if there is no share out, there is revolution, riot, theft, social disorder. You could get that with a Monopoly game too if everybody is p|ssed!
So as the bankers (and other expert) have frucked up badly we should allow them all to go bust (and anybody else) then cancel debts, credits, cancel the currency, nationalise all property, then start again. Simple innit!
Not much difference in the real world, from the Monopoly board game. The game goes on and as long as everybody has a hand in it it's OK.
But when too many houses or too much cash ends up in too few hands, the game slows down or stops. To get it going again you have to share out the cash and the property a bit. If anybody wanted to hang on to their wealth (monopoly money and little wooden houses etc) the rest can just go off and play another game, but unfortunately, not in the real world. In the real world, if there is no share out, there is revolution, riot, theft, social disorder. You could get that with a Monopoly game too if everybody is p|ssed!
So as the bankers (and other expert) have frucked up badly we should allow them all to go bust (and anybody else) then cancel debts, credits, cancel the currency, nationalise all property, then start again. Simple innit!
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Very good question and straight to the point.Digit":3bb4yv6d said:
In the Monopoly game - whatever it takes to keep the game going. The game is more important than the monopoly money. If you've ever played this game you will have encountered players who don't get this point and would rather hang on to their token wealth.
In real life - exactly the same.
RogerS
Established Member
Jacob":29fjv63a said:
So answer the question, Jacob. How much of your wealth are you prepared to give up? As far as I am aware there are only the two of you and yet, unless I am mistaken you live in a very large property that you are doing up. If you 'walked the talk' then you would move out into a two bed semi somewhere and let a very large family live where you are currently.
Modernist
Established Member
RogerS":1c1lrg05 said:
But the two are connected. All of financial services requires worker bees like me to generate profits to invest for them to p*ss about with. In the case of the sub prime mortgages it was the poor punters who put up the dosh. I don't agree it was their fault as they were going to accept a mortgage if offered. It was up to the FS to establish if it was viable.
Having got that far they then bundled these liabilities and traded them having lost sight of the original vulnerability. Of course people shouldn't borrow more than they can afford but it is up to the provider to establish that, that is their (I hesitate to use the term) profession.
There is no useful purpose in many financial schemes other than to generate profit for themselves. It would be a good idea to eliminate these products and simplify the system getting rid of droves of overpaid and non-productive FS people along the way.
The reason the populace are so angry is that the burden of putting all this right is falling on the easy targets, not on the perpetrators. I was looking at investment funds only yesterday and many of them are back on their pre 2008 trajectory, continuing to generate fees as they do so. In the meantime we have received yet another form today placing more hurdles in the path of my daughter's disability living allowance.
If we need to cut some significant expenditure I suggest we look at place this this first
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16101242
Thus the govenment's plan to separate the retail division from the investmant branch should prevent a recurrence.
That of course being human nature and thus expected, as is making a profit out of trading something that others will buy.
You can't say that one human failing in a customer is better or worse than in the vendor.
Who is worse, the drug dealer or the punter who chooses to take what is being sold?
It's an old cliche Brian but it takes two to make a bargain.
Roy.
That of course being human nature and thus expected, as is making a profit out of trading something that others will buy.
You can't say that one human failing in a customer is better or worse than in the vendor.
Who is worse, the drug dealer or the punter who chooses to take what is being sold?
It's an old cliche Brian but it takes two to make a bargain.
Roy.
Modernist
Established Member
Digit":3u0ld794 said:
Last comment from me for today.
It does take two but one is supposed to be regulated to prevent mis-selling. After all it is the profession versus the general public. You don't have to be Einstein to see where it is going. Re my Ireland housing comment, at one time there were more houses than there were population!
maybe we'll never agree.
Brian, the Euro zone's problems are not caused by banks! They were caused by certain countries borrowing more than they could repay. They got away with it by being less than honest with their lenders, please note that before the latest bail out they had to hand over their books for examination!
The modern Greek state was formed in 1830, since then they have gone bust four times!
Once might be a mistake, four times sounds like a habit!
Roy.
The modern Greek state was formed in 1830, since then they have gone bust four times!
Once might be a mistake, four times sounds like a habit!
Roy.
Allylearm
Established Member
Roy.[/quote]
Even the retail arm of the banks have their bad points. Notice how high that fine was at HSBC for selling wrong policies to OAPs. You can bet your bottom dollar that the staff, directors and managers etc in the bank who got their bonuses for meeting targets selling these policies won't be asked to pay them back. And then there was PPI, Standard Life endowment ponzi schemes, Equitable Life...it is endless.
But to let a bank go to the wall is just plain daft. It's a house of cards and the whole lot will come down around our ears. How are you going to explain to the retired population that their pensions are now zero, allylearm ? Which reminds me......in another thread on Public Sector strikes, you quite clearly stated that you had 'done the maths' and I asked you four times to show us. So come on and 'fess up. You were telling porkies, weren't you?[/quote]
Sorry you never gave any proof to your typos so why should I define a reply I even stated as such, so I stopped reading your posts in the public sector debate as you were not being constructive only argumentative for the sake of it.
As for pensions in the private sector, are they not being devalued or been made worthless as private sector employers wish to have short term contracts and less chance of regress to appeal dismissal, has the decline in interest rate and devaluing in currency not affecting anyone at present on a pension. First the private sector and pensioners get it by devaluation or loss of interest and now we have Tory/Lib pact trying to do the public sector. So linked in one way but my stance has not.
House building which is another irk of mine which alludes to similar vain as pension tirades. I used to be employed as a manufacturing manager of a house builder. We made the kits, trusses/covering, stairs, door cassettes, Windows, plasterboard supplied, flooring (Chip) supplied and finishings Red Pine. We supplied it as a kit as you often see. At the time some 3/4 years ago before the bubble well and truly burst I was selling kits for 4/5 bed detached house for £9000 this included all first and second fix but none of the following. Building labour in Electrical/Plumbing/Brickwork if required/Joinery labour for 1st-2nd fixing or concrete work/Slating/Roughcast/Ground work/Landscaping. It did not include electrical or kitchens or plumbing bits or bricks/roughcast or concrete. The other part it did not supply was land. So for Red pine finishing you spent £9000 or for £14K Ash Finishings and Oak Stair and a library and larger rooms.
The £9000 kit house sold on average £190-230k depending on location
The £14K kit house sold on average £350-520k depending on location though the higher price did receive larger garden space and double garage and maybe a fancier roof even a turret from time to time
So justify the price and justify the valuation. And we wonder why at present the UK is suffering in houses price dropping, they were never valued at the right price in the first place and part of this is firmly at the feet of Tory led council house sales that generated the boom in house price rises and the market that was required to be developed as a country we had previously been mostly renting. The new get rich council house sellers needed to go up in the market and go live in schemes out of town with the capitol generated from house discounts at the local taxpayers expense. This started pushing up house sales/market though as a country I would say our house sizes or more correct room sizes have shrunk compared to Europe and USA. So we are being done twice the houses are valued to high and the rooms are smaller, great marketing ploy and even quicker get rich scheme found in the last 20 years or so. All developing from Council House sales and our friend Maggie. It may have even created some election wins and new Tory voters. Now we are short of council housing stock and have a growing population who cannot get mortgages.
Even the retail arm of the banks have their bad points. Notice how high that fine was at HSBC for selling wrong policies to OAPs. You can bet your bottom dollar that the staff, directors and managers etc in the bank who got their bonuses for meeting targets selling these policies won't be asked to pay them back. And then there was PPI, Standard Life endowment ponzi schemes, Equitable Life...it is endless.
But to let a bank go to the wall is just plain daft. It's a house of cards and the whole lot will come down around our ears. How are you going to explain to the retired population that their pensions are now zero, allylearm ? Which reminds me......in another thread on Public Sector strikes, you quite clearly stated that you had 'done the maths' and I asked you four times to show us. So come on and 'fess up. You were telling porkies, weren't you?[/quote]
Sorry you never gave any proof to your typos so why should I define a reply I even stated as such, so I stopped reading your posts in the public sector debate as you were not being constructive only argumentative for the sake of it.
As for pensions in the private sector, are they not being devalued or been made worthless as private sector employers wish to have short term contracts and less chance of regress to appeal dismissal, has the decline in interest rate and devaluing in currency not affecting anyone at present on a pension. First the private sector and pensioners get it by devaluation or loss of interest and now we have Tory/Lib pact trying to do the public sector. So linked in one way but my stance has not.
House building which is another irk of mine which alludes to similar vain as pension tirades. I used to be employed as a manufacturing manager of a house builder. We made the kits, trusses/covering, stairs, door cassettes, Windows, plasterboard supplied, flooring (Chip) supplied and finishings Red Pine. We supplied it as a kit as you often see. At the time some 3/4 years ago before the bubble well and truly burst I was selling kits for 4/5 bed detached house for £9000 this included all first and second fix but none of the following. Building labour in Electrical/Plumbing/Brickwork if required/Joinery labour for 1st-2nd fixing or concrete work/Slating/Roughcast/Ground work/Landscaping. It did not include electrical or kitchens or plumbing bits or bricks/roughcast or concrete. The other part it did not supply was land. So for Red pine finishing you spent £9000 or for £14K Ash Finishings and Oak Stair and a library and larger rooms.
The £9000 kit house sold on average £190-230k depending on location
The £14K kit house sold on average £350-520k depending on location though the higher price did receive larger garden space and double garage and maybe a fancier roof even a turret from time to time
So justify the price and justify the valuation. And we wonder why at present the UK is suffering in houses price dropping, they were never valued at the right price in the first place and part of this is firmly at the feet of Tory led council house sales that generated the boom in house price rises and the market that was required to be developed as a country we had previously been mostly renting. The new get rich council house sellers needed to go up in the market and go live in schemes out of town with the capitol generated from house discounts at the local taxpayers expense. This started pushing up house sales/market though as a country I would say our house sizes or more correct room sizes have shrunk compared to Europe and USA. So we are being done twice the houses are valued to high and the rooms are smaller, great marketing ploy and even quicker get rich scheme found in the last 20 years or so. All developing from Council House sales and our friend Maggie. It may have even created some election wins and new Tory voters. Now we are short of council housing stock and have a growing population who cannot get mortgages.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Actually it's barely habitable so far!RogerS":2jf2nyjm said:
I'm happy to vote for governments which would bring about a fairer distribution, particularly if curbing excess wealth with big marginal rates. I realise this could disadvantage me in the short term but it would be good for all, including me, in the long term. Nothing radical about that - taxation and redistribution is the basis of all civilised countries at the moment.
I'd vote for civilisation but I'm not planning to set up a socialistic republic with just me in it!
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Loosely termed the First WorldDigit":39mcv7y1 said:
A portion of the redistribution is in direct benefits but the bulk of it is in public services - in the widest sense, including the military, space exploration, you name it.. This is rarely a drain on the economy in the developed world - quite the opposite, tax and spending drives it onwards and upwards.
