Not sure why anyone is overly shocked by this, it's been common(ish) knowledge for years that he sold off our gold reserves for next to nothing like a retard. Interesting that it's being dredged up now however, this will certainly increase the anger towards the Government and bankers.Originally Posted by Lallante
If this is true the moral hazard implied is literally unbelievable in scale.
yes, I am Le terribad at BF3
But clearly learn absolutely fuck all from the experience.So what you're saying is Brown saved the world's banking system not once, but twice?
So just like the bankers are doing this to the world atm?The trouble with that, surely, is that it's massively open to abuse - unless you can guarantee the integrity and honesty of the people who decide whether or not a given action falls within the spirit of the legislation, aren't you just creating a group who have the right to fuck anybody over on a whim?
The more i read about this shit and stuff like this the more i lean towards of the most sensible solution being just shooting the bankers and the politicians.If this is true the moral hazard implied is literally unbelievable in scale.
Still old old news though. Sure, you can ask: why didn't they do something then? But what's the point asking that question now?But clearly learn absolutely fuck all from the experience.So what you're saying is Brown saved the world's banking system not once, but twice?
Anyway, dragging this up now I think is nothing other than the conservatives trying to deflect the blame again. First Osborne tried to drag in Labour on Libor, when that utterly failed I wouldn't be surprised if they came up with this gem from the ancient past.
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
So, what this article says is that we had a to big to fail bank in 1999.
And the UK bailed them out back then, burning a one time only reserve.
And nothing was done to ensure that something like that would never happen again.
And all it brought was an even bigger bust 9 years later.
And once again, nothing was done to ensure that something like that would never happen again.
To me, responsible are insane.
Tanks: theBlind[SOBAD] (in my heart there will always be a place for [FAIL])
Planetside2: [UBAD]theAngelic
the only decent thing Gordo did while chancellor was keep us out of the Euro.
And introduce the minimum wage.
And cede control of interest rates to the BoE.
Yup, and he was a much better Chancellor than PM which isn't something I'd be proud of personally.
The finger pointing and cheap political points both parties are trying to score ATM is just a distraction. The fact is both parties are equally responsible for the current state of the UK and both should be held to account. The problem is there is no one in the position to do that.
I'm not one for riots (other than thefactor), but I am a great believer in civil disobedience, and I think it might be the only way to start changing things in a non-violent way. The longer this goes on, the higher the risk of violence gets and that is bad for everybody. Something will give eventually, it's just a matter of time.
yes, I am Le terribad at BF3
failure does not bother me, as long as people learn from the mistakes and correct them, put honestly suggesting giving power from one obviously corrupt group to another as a "solution" does nothing but pass the problem on to the next few generations down the line.How is that not the same as saying: "Any regulation the people could possibly come up with is bound to fail"?in the long run however, even imposing restrictions on banks and their money generation ability, all you are really doing is trading one corrupt cesspit for another.
so instead of anger directed at banks for manipulating the markets for their own gain :lollibor: style you got corrupt politicians manipulating the money supply for their own gain.
unless of course you get the central bank staff out of your existing banks, but that's just a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" situation that nobody is going to be satisfied with, and that's unlikely to work in the long run anyway. (pro tip, we do that already)
Lallante : less trolling, more solutions then ?
My point is, that for quite a long time in the previous century, the financial and banking sectors were quite well regulated, and that resulted in a fairly stable economic system. Regulation and oversight worked fine then. Why would it not be able to work again?
And that is a different question as: will we be able to get those regulations and regulators in the current environment? Given the level of corruption and the amount of vested interest, particularly in the political system, it may take some pretty radical shifts to get to get there. Maybe even impossible.
But that doesn't mean that it is also impossible to regulate the system.
woe betide the moneyed elite who are suddenly responsible for their actions. /sarcasmThe trouble with that, surely, is that it's massively open to abuse - unless you can guarantee the integrity and honesty of the people who decide whether or not a given action falls within the spirit of the legislation, aren't you just creating a group who have the right to fuck anybody over on a whim?
it works with the police, a lot of legislation has build in phrasing that allows them to interpret it to give a reasonable outcome to borderline cases, and there are strong safeguards in place against corruption of any sort, not that these don't fail on occasion though, but it at-least seems to work.
because if it did not you'd either be bashing their heads in with bricks or living in a gigantic police state. (oh hang on, might have spotted a flaw in my logic with the last one...)
The minimum wage was a Labour manifesto commitment. Whereas Gordo annoyed a lot of the labour europhiles (supposedly including Tony Blair) when he announced the 5 economic tests criteria for the Euro.And introduce the minimum wage.
And cede control of interest rates to the BoE.
hmmmmmm .... you plan interests me. Please expand.
Joking aside, unfortunately we lowly masses are now in the position that those same lawyers, bankers and politicians at the top of the tree appear to be colluding to keep their riches 'in house' (cash for questions/honours, phone hacking, LOBBYING, political funding, insider trading, arms deals via royal contacts, political perjury, white collar crime, etc, etc, etc) and breaking into that social elite will get increasingly difficult apparently, in the years to come. Even middle management within the UK appears to be selected on they ability to dodge, lie and dissemble their way through their working life rather than daring to be honest.
I have seen quite a few people (some personal friends) who have been fine upstanding people, who when given a little wealth, start considering themselves and the services they provide worthy of outrageous pay increases for no solid reason, in much the same vein as the lawyers, bankers and politicians. It looks like human nature to become a corrupt, selfish money grabbing gimp when presented with the opportunity.
... btw i vote shooting the politicians first for no other reason than i hate party political broadcasts.
Shitting up eve for .... well, longer than most of you scumbags.
Lol. It always amazes me how strong a sense of entitlement low-achievers tend to have.hmmmmmm .... you plan interests me. Please expand.
Joking aside, unfortunately we lowly masses are now in the position that those same lawyers, bankers and politicians at the top of the tree appear to be colluding to keep their riches 'in house' (cash for questions/honours, phone hacking, LOBBYING, political funding, insider trading, arms deals via royal contacts, political perjury, white collar crime, etc, etc, etc) and breaking into that social elite will get increasingly difficult apparently, in the years to come. Even middle management within the UK appears to be selected on they ability to dodge, lie and dissemble their way through their working life rather than daring to be honest.
I have seen quite a few people (some personal friends) who have been fine upstanding people, who when given a little wealth, start considering themselves and the services they provide worthy of outrageous pay increases for no solid reason, in much the same vein as the lawyers, bankers and politicians. It looks like human nature to become a corrupt, selfish money grabbing gimp when presented with the opportunity.
... btw i vote shooting the politicians first for no other reason than i hate party political broadcasts.
Actually, the worst aspect of all of this is that by now large numbers seem to have all but resigned themselves to the notion that regulation or even 'change' is all but pointless and that the only way to solve this mess is a complete collapse of the system. Whatever the fallout of that may be ...
Hardly surprising when you look at the moronic "achievers" running the country.Lol. It always amazes me how strong a sense of entitlement low-achievers tend to have.hmmmmmm .... you plan interests me. Please expand.
Joking aside, unfortunately we lowly masses are now in the position that those same lawyers, bankers and politicians at the top of the tree appear to be colluding to keep their riches 'in house' (cash for questions/honours, phone hacking, LOBBYING, political funding, insider trading, arms deals via royal contacts, political perjury, white collar crime, etc, etc, etc) and breaking into that social elite will get increasingly difficult apparently, in the years to come. Even middle management within the UK appears to be selected on they ability to dodge, lie and dissemble their way through their working life rather than daring to be honest.
I have seen quite a few people (some personal friends) who have been fine upstanding people, who when given a little wealth, start considering themselves and the services they provide worthy of outrageous pay increases for no solid reason, in much the same vein as the lawyers, bankers and politicians. It looks like human nature to become a corrupt, selfish money grabbing gimp when presented with the opportunity.
... btw i vote shooting the politicians first for no other reason than i hate party political broadcasts.
Lol. It always amazes me how strong a sense of achievement conniving bastards tend to have.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...responsibilityUK austerity set to last decades as cost of ageing population rises
Tax increases or more spending cuts will be needed to reduce national debt in long term, says Office of Budget Responsibility
Austerity measures will have to continue to find the extra £80bn needed by 2061 to pay for a rise in over-65s to 26% of the population, the OBR predicts. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images
The age of austerity will be longer that first thought if the UK is to keep up with the escalating costs of an ageing population, the government's independent economic forecaster has said.
The Office for Budget Responsibility said the UK's public finances were "clearly unsustainable" over the next 50 years, despite Chancellor George Osborne's punishing round of spending cuts.
Even if the government succeeds in saving £123bn over the next seven years, the OBR said it would need to permanently increase taxes or cut spending by 1.1% of GDP – around £17bn in today's terms – to get the national debt back to pre-crisis levels.
If the government continues with current policies, and if those policies succeed, the OBR said public finances would improve until the mid 2020s. But there would still be a long-term deterioration in the decades that follow.
Net public sector debt is forecast to fall from 74% of GDP in 2016-17 to a low of 57% in the mid-2020s, before rising increasingly fast to reach 89% of GDP in 2061-62. That is an improvement on last year's forecast that debt would reach 107% of GDP by 2061, but the OBR said more still needed to be done.
"On current policy we would expect the budget deficit to widen sufficiently over the long term to put public sector net debt on a continuously rising trajectory as a share of national income," it said. "This is clearly unsustainable."
People over 65 are expected to make up around 26% of the UK's population by 2061, compared with 17% this year. That will cost an additional £80bn in today's money to pay for health, pensions and long-term care, the OBR said.
Recent reforms to public sector pensions have cut costs by £175bn, it added. The bulk of those savings, around £126bn, came from the 2010 decision to make pensions rise in line with the consumer prices index, rather than the retail prices index.
As well as the growing burden of paying for the elderly, the OBR noted that declining North Sea oil production is likely to put pressure on revenues over the next 50 years. "This suggests governments are likely to need to find replacement streams of revenue just to hold the tax burden constant, let alone to meet the upward pressures on spending," it said.
To become a corporate lawyer or banker you (most likely) need:
- close to straight A grades at school in mostly "traditional" hard subjects
- a strong (2:1 or 1st) degree from a top 15 university in a "hard" subject
- to get through rigerous and incredibly competitive interview processes
- to be willing to work hours that often exceed double those of a "normal" job
- to put up with stress that would literally mean months off work for an average public sector employee
- to consistently prioritise your work over your personal life
To complain that all lawyers and bankers don't deserve what they are paid you need:
- a big mouth
- no clue
It is there fault they choose that life style. The salaries are disproportionation to the amount of work of say a bricklayer.
None of those above things make you better then any other person it just means you have sacrificed your life and made yourself a slave to that system.
Must....not........bite.......Gaaargh
yes, I am Le terribad at BF3
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks