Yep Neil is right we have had a similar kerfuffle over here re RBS. Let them leave, I know a lot of bankers suddenly found themselves out for work two years ago, I bet they'ed love to get back into higher paid banking work.
On 10 Dec, 08:06, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > And then, there's the British solution; provide a measure solely for > PR purposes, at the same time leaving the bankers confortable, well- > designed loopholes to avoid the whole > thing.http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/pbr/article6... > > And this is a Labour, not a Tory administration which produces this > lovely piece of nonsense. The only thing that has been learned from > the crash is that a little more care has to be taken to soft-soap the > public, otherwise the rip-off business goes on as usual, with > politicians as willing accomplices. Or are various Labour politicians, > (including the Darling Chancellor) anticipating an inevitable loss of > power next May, just lining up their plum boardroom jobs in major > financial institutions following the election? > > The original Clause IV of the Labour Party Constitution, adopted in > 1918 went as follows: > > "To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of > their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be > possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of > production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system > of popular administration and control of each industry or service." > > This was far too radical for New Labour, so Blair and his friends had > it changed in 1995 to the following: > > "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by > the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve > alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true > potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and > opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the > rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, > freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect." > > (Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clause_4) > > So what does this mean? According to the present British Labour Party > leadership, democratic socialist = handmaiden (or perhaps better > whore) of financial institutions. > > Well, at least Don has no need to be wary of democratic socialists any > more (although, come to think of it, their capability for moral - er - > flexibility would probably put him off them, as Don is a conservative > with principles, a word of which these ladies and gentlemen do not > seem to know the meaning). > > Francis > > On 10 Dez., 07:21, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > We've had the same in the UK. The board of the nationalised RBS > > threatened to resign if they were able to pay out billions in > > bonuses. I wonder if we could find a way to call this bluff on an > > international basis? In essence we'd need a new money system and this > > might help us work out what the stuff actually is. I get frustrated > > doing accounting sums these days, but it's been obvious through years > > of teaching that it's all smoke and mirrors. I actually worked for > > RBS two years back teaching some complex maths. I dislike maths when > > I can't see what its empirical connections are, and the whole point of > > these Gaussian copula thingies is confusion. The idea is that the > > complex number crunching will throw up (thanks to super-cooled > > computers) advanced information on the markets that let you shift your > > position first (ie, unload your shares in the mine before others know > > the seam is done for). None of the guys I was teaching were any good > > at the maths itself. We did a quick exercise on the RBS balance sheet > > and none of them could even explain that to me and why there was more > > money off balance sheet than in the damn thing. > > > Very early in teaching accounting you teach people to cheat. What > > makes profit and loss and cash flow hard for many is they can't get > > round guessing at the figures to make up a business case. Once you > > get them cheating and used to double entry, they begin to see that > > it's all just about making the sums balance. We do very little on > > whether the amounts claimed are real of not. The machine valued at > > £100K is taken as worth this, even though two weeks later it actually > > costs £10K to get it taken away. In principle one should check on the > > real assets, but where the hell are they in modern accounting? > > > My guess is that some people can now effectively pay themselves what > > they want and use money as though they were government, because they > > are responsible for saying whether it is there or not. Real > > accounting is much like criminal investigation. Over the years we > > have stopped asking for evidence and taken things on trust. It's like > > watching a guy wearing a mask and a striped T-shirt building a mansion > > on the wages you pay him as a gardener. > > > The gambles taken by accountancy firms all relied on other people > > staying honest. No real need to check the accounts (after all we > > don't get paid much for that), let's just sign off on them. After > > all, these guys pay us millions for other advice. The money keeps > > coming, who will ever know. These people are thieves and it's got so > > bad they can threaten us because they can collapse the system by being > > honest. > > On 9 Dec, 00:16, dj Briscoe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I left off a 0 correction$500.000 > > > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:15 PM, dj Briscoe > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > This must be big bussiness I suppose American International Group..To > > > > get > > > > these kind of pay and there complaining...This is a Hurbis deed > > > > > Feinberg may issue a ruling as early as next week allowing some Aig > > > > execitives > > > > to earn more than a $500.oo salary cap he announced in October to one of > > > > the people > > > > Treasury Department and Federal Reserve Officials have urged him to > > > > strike > > > > a balaance between curbing excessive Pay and retaining key employers..I > > > > my > > > > terms this is a big sums of money ..Pride-pride-pride.. > > > > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 6:37 AM, ornamentalmind > > > > <[email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > >> Five AIG execs say may quit over pay > > > > >> Wall Street Journal says they're upset that pay czar cut their > > > >> compensation > > > > >> Five senior executives at American International Group told the bailed- > > > >> out insurer last week they may quit if their compensation was cut > > > >> significantly by the U.S. pay czar, the Wall Street Journal reported. > > > > >> The five senior AIG executives indicated on December 1, in written > > > >> notices, that they were prepared to leave by year-end, the paper > > > >> reported, citing unnamed sources. Two of them changed their minds over > > > >> the weekend, the paper added. > > > >> AIG, which was propped up by the government with some $180 billion in > > > >> taxpayer funds, has been sparring with the Obama administration's pay > > > >> czar, Kenneth Feinberg, over executive compensation. > > > > >> Even Chief Executive Robert Benmosche reportedly threatened to quit > > > >> last month, in part because he did not have discretion over pay > > > >> packages for top executives. > > > >> Feinberg has cut average compensation for the 25 best-paid employees > > > >> at companies that received multiple bailouts and is setting guidelines > > > >> for pay for the next 75. > > > > >> For AIG in particular, Feinberg has vowed to limit bonuses at the > > > >> company's financial products unit, whose massive payouts earlier this > > > >> year sparked huge outrage. > > > > >> AIG could not be reached immediately late on Sunday. > > > > >> Copyright 2009 Reuters. > > > >>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34309703/ > > > > >> -- > > > > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > >> Groups > > > >> ""Minds Eye"" group. > > > >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > >> [email protected]<minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups > > > >> .com> > > > >> . > > > >> For more options, visit this group at > > > >>http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
