I taught with a guy called Barret-Brown years back - he was a leftie advisor to Harold Wilson. Back then, the ideas in economics were broadly aimed at forming capital that provided jobs and a security of working conditions (including pensions), with the banking system seen as having a role in providing support for this rather than doing the international hot-money casino stuff. I'd tend to believe that this was what 'Thatcher' (who was a representative of the City) dismantled. Rather than being a heroine, she is actually the evil villain of the piece, selling the country out from under us by giving North Sea oil to bankers and de-skilling and de-capacitising the economy. Blair and Brown are very much the CIA continuance of this. Across most of the money market, it turns out that a random dart is as good an investment tool as all the super-wonder-bonus-takers - the idea that any small number have special skills (rather than insider knowledge or luck) has never been proved and there are simple ways we could test. Banking is clearly an administrative cost and the general rule in business is to control or eliminate these as parasitic. Deep down, I suspect the UK is a bent economy that allows money laundering on a massive scale and the banks are only able to make money from these activities and other criminality. There is nothing clever enough in finance to be responsible for honest profits.
On 10 Dec, 15:19, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
