Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
An Ideological Battle; George Osborne has urged business to counter what he sees as an anti-free market movement led by trade unions and charities.
Topic Started: Oct 3 2014, 03:35 PM (1,248 Views)
jeevesnwooster
҈
[ *  *  * ]
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/03/george-osborne-businesses-case-free-market

Quote:
 
George Osborne has urged businesses to raise their heads “above the parapet” and counter what he sees as an anti-free market movement led by trade unions and charities.

Speaking to business leaders at the Institute of Directors’ annual convention, Osborne said principles of enterprise and business as a force for widespread prosperity were “up for grabs” for the first time in his adult life.

Quote:
 

He added: “For the first time in my adult life that is up for grabs. That issue felt like it had been resolved when the Berlin Wall fell … Politicians like Tony Blair from the left felt like they had understood that free markets create the taxes to fund public services. That argument has gone.”

Osborne’s comments about businesses taking a stand in a battle of ideas around capitalism contrasted somewhat with a perspective from his fellow speaker, Peter Kellner, president of the pollsters YouGov.

Setting out a list of controversial business practices such as zero-hours contracts and large executive bonuses, Kellner urged business leaders to consider how their behaviour affected their reputations. He flagged up the dwindling reputations of those in power – be it in central government, local government or business.

Kellner said there had been a marked decline in recent years of trust in politics, driven by the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) revelations and later the expenses scandal. But YouGov had also noted that the reputation of business leaders had declined as a group, he said.


It's time the ideological battle went beyond "capitalism or no capitalism", reforming the system doesn't work, most if not all left-wing and right-wing ideologies don't work.

Why won't people think beyond the current paradigm and see that there are different ways of operating things that go far beyond the imaginations of simplistic politicians like Gideon
Edited by jeevesnwooster, Oct 3 2014, 03:36 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
somersetli
Member Avatar
somersetli
[ *  *  * ]
C-too
Oct 9 2014, 08:21 AM
Western capitalism no longer has the world at its feet, if we earn less, then we have to live within our means. Changing the system doesn't mean we will be any better off. We would still require a different mindset from the present top down imposed them and us. The mindset IMO is what needs to change.

Under NL the poor got richer. The gap in wealth was in part caused by the immigration of some very rich people who felt at that time that the UK was the place to be.

One example of the good done by NL was 1.6 million people taken out of relative poverty. And there are plenty of other examples.

I can't help noticing that Tony and Cherie Blair were also taken out of poverty as well (if they were ever in it).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Oct 8 2014, 10:13 PM
jeevesnwooster
Oct 8 2014, 05:55 PM
C-too
Oct 8 2014, 04:08 PM
Good, we agree on the benefits of capitalism.

You can cite many things they got wrong, but the overall outcome is in the main positive.

I don't think these people had much to lose in the first place. I know I didn't when I purchased my first house. Some wealth appears to accrue very late in life, I remember as a young man thinking why is it old people have nice cars, I now know.

The wealth makers are the businesses that invest in research and development and do all the organising. They are the people who build-up businesses and create work/employment for others. That is as opposed to those who create little or nothing and spend their time sucking the financial blood from the system.

We may well agree on the benefit (no s there) of capitalism, but that's neither here nor there.

You believe that capitalism can be saved and some left-wing social democratic "capitalism with a conscience" party can take us out of trouble.

I have pointed out why this is a false view.

You are wrong about people not having much to lose. A lot of young people have this odd view that they can expect a house and car and everything on a plate at 25. When you raise the bar like that, you inevitably shove yourself harder to reach that bar...and fall harder when/if that doesn't happen.

That's incomparable to any decade past when young people had a lot more responsibility and it seems were taught almost as a rule to act as if they were older than their years.

I think the death of responsibility in most young people is pretty awful to be honest, they've been taught they can drink til they drop, indulge themselves in every vice known and still they can expect everything on a plate

Your comment about wealth makers is dead wrong, the real wealth-makers are those who CREATE wealth through their hard work.

Most businesses are dead-weights who provide society with absolutely nothing of value, all they do is leech off of the hard work of others in all areas.
I was in exactly the position you describe when I took out my first mortgage many years ago. I worked full time and at times I had to work on two part time jobs (at different times) as well in order to pay my way.

NL were centre-left, and their policy of capitalism for the benefit of the many not the few was a very central position in politics. There is nothing to stop the capitalist system from continuing to improve. You have not shown any proof of why improvement is a false view, AFAIK all you have produced is one man's opinion.
If capitalism goes backwards then it will be replaced but that will be no guarantee of improvement for the many.

People can work hard while earning nothing and producing very little. It takes organisation, investment and innovation, that is what allows people to both earn a living and produce something worthwhile. Having said that I would agree that one of the problems in the UK is a lack of reasonable reward for effort for far too many workers.
For the refreshing of minds of some, and the entertainment of others of others I give you

http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_copybook.htm
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
somersetli
Member Avatar
somersetli
[ *  *  * ]
jeevesnwooster
Oct 8 2014, 09:17 PM
somersetli
Oct 8 2014, 08:48 PM
Not forgetting, of course, many small businesses have the owner working alongside his employees.
Yes, making sure all that good work that needs doing gets done  ::) , most Wonderful Messianic Small Businesses being completely useless to society as well by the way
That seems a little harsh to small businesses and I am sure that the thousands of people employed in such would not agree with you that they are useless to society.

I checked the House of commons Library report on Small Businesses and The UK Economy dated 13/6/14. It states that in 2013 there were 4.9 million businesses in the UK, 99% of which were small and medium enterprises.
They employed 14,424,000 people and represented a gross value of 49.8% to the UK economy.

Hardly 'completely useless to society' wouldn't you say?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cymru
Alt-Right
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Oct 8 2014, 10:22 PM
Define workers please.
Someone whose primary or only source of income is from selling their labour and/or expertise.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Cymru
Oct 9 2014, 11:29 AM
Tytoalba
Oct 8 2014, 10:22 PM
Define workers please.
Someone whose primary or only source of income is from selling their labour and/or expertise.

Like it!

Edited by Affa, Oct 9 2014, 11:52 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Oct 9 2014, 09:47 AM
C-too
Oct 8 2014, 10:13 PM
jeevesnwooster
Oct 8 2014, 05:55 PM
C-too
Oct 8 2014, 04:08 PM
Good, we agree on the benefits of capitalism.

You can cite many things they got wrong, but the overall outcome is in the main positive.

I don't think these people had much to lose in the first place. I know I didn't when I purchased my first house. Some wealth appears to accrue very late in life, I remember as a young man thinking why is it old people have nice cars, I now know.

The wealth makers are the businesses that invest in research and development and do all the organising. They are the people who build-up businesses and create work/employment for others. That is as opposed to those who create little or nothing and spend their time sucking the financial blood from the system.

We may well agree on the benefit (no s there) of capitalism, but that's neither here nor there.

You believe that capitalism can be saved and some left-wing social democratic "capitalism with a conscience" party can take us out of trouble.

I have pointed out why this is a false view.

You are wrong about people not having much to lose. A lot of young people have this odd view that they can expect a house and car and everything on a plate at 25. When you raise the bar like that, you inevitably shove yourself harder to reach that bar...and fall harder when/if that doesn't happen.

That's incomparable to any decade past when young people had a lot more responsibility and it seems were taught almost as a rule to act as if they were older than their years.

I think the death of responsibility in most young people is pretty awful to be honest, they've been taught they can drink til they drop, indulge themselves in every vice known and still they can expect everything on a plate

Your comment about wealth makers is dead wrong, the real wealth-makers are those who CREATE wealth through their hard work.

Most businesses are dead-weights who provide society with absolutely nothing of value, all they do is leech off of the hard work of others in all areas.
I was in exactly the position you describe when I took out my first mortgage many years ago. I worked full time and at times I had to work on two part time jobs (at different times) as well in order to pay my way.

NL were centre-left, and their policy of capitalism for the benefit of the many not the few was a very central position in politics. There is nothing to stop the capitalist system from continuing to improve. You have not shown any proof of why improvement is a false view, AFAIK all you have produced is one man's opinion.
If capitalism goes backwards then it will be replaced but that will be no guarantee of improvement for the many.

People can work hard while earning nothing and producing very little. It takes organisation, investment and innovation, that is what allows people to both earn a living and produce something worthwhile. Having said that I would agree that one of the problems in the UK is a lack of reasonable reward for effort for far too many workers.
For the refreshing of minds of some, and the entertainment of others of others I give you

http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_copybook.htm
How very very apt, especially the last paragraph. !clp! !clp! !clp!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
somersetli
Oct 9 2014, 09:42 AM
C-too
Oct 9 2014, 08:21 AM
Western capitalism no longer has the world at its feet, if we earn less, then we have to live within our means. Changing the system doesn't mean we will be any better off. We would still require a different mindset from the present top down imposed them and us. The mindset IMO is what needs to change.

Under NL the poor got richer. The gap in wealth was in part caused by the immigration of some very rich people who felt at that time that the UK was the place to be.

One example of the good done by NL was 1.6 million people taken out of relative poverty. And there are plenty of other examples.

I can't help noticing that Tony and Cherie Blair were also taken out of poverty as well (if they were ever in it).
Fair comment, but they are not on their own, certainly Thatcher earned a lot from giving speeches around the world after she retired and I believe she was married to a millionaire.

I have no problem with people being wealthy, but when wealthy people push hundreds of thousands of people into relative poverty, as happened under the last Tory governments, then IMO they earn the adjective of being nasty.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
somersetli
Member Avatar
somersetli
[ *  *  * ]
C-too, I've been an adult under many of both Labour and Conservative governments, (approx 9 of each), and none of them have made me either wealthy or poor. To be honest, I have never seen much difference under one or the other.
Therefore I cannot see where you can find these "hundreds and thousands" driven into poverty under specifically Conservative governments.

I've had some hard times in my life, and so did my parents before me. My father would talk of the time that a Labour government, back in the 1930s, reduced the unemployment benefit by 10% plus reducing the pay of men in the armed services, (resulting in the Naval Mutiny at Invergorden.)
Obviously governments have to dish out nasty medicine from time to time, but I don't think one is any worse than another.
Edited by somersetli, Oct 9 2014, 03:32 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jeevesnwooster
҈
[ *  *  * ]
somersetli
Oct 9 2014, 10:13 AM
jeevesnwooster
Oct 8 2014, 09:17 PM
somersetli
Oct 8 2014, 08:48 PM
Not forgetting, of course, many small businesses have the owner working alongside his employees.
Yes, making sure all that good work that needs doing gets done  ::) , most Wonderful Messianic Small Businesses being completely useless to society as well by the way
That seems a little harsh to small businesses and I am sure that the thousands of people employed in such would not agree with you that they are useless to society.

I checked the House of commons Library report on Small Businesses and The UK Economy dated 13/6/14. It states that in 2013 there were 4.9 million businesses in the UK, 99% of which were small and medium enterprises.
They employed 14,424,000 people and represented a gross value of 49.8% to the UK economy.

Hardly 'completely useless to society' wouldn't you say?
Who said the people who work in these businesses are useless to society? I certainly never said that. A lot of people whether consciously or not, know whether their job is ultimately useful to society.

A job is a job and living on benefits is a harsh life, if you have to work in a business that does nothing good for society then there's probably not al ot you can do about it, I would never say people employed in those businesses are "useless to society".

The statistics you quote don't mean a whole lot, that's not actually as many people as I thought were in those jobs.

In oct 2013 there were about 30 million people in work, that's under half of everyone in work.

The services sector by far makes up the majority of our economy and I'd be keen to know what trades take up the majority of the services sector

Edited by jeevesnwooster, Oct 9 2014, 04:05 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Oct 8 2014, 11:04 AM
Steve K
Oct 7 2014, 10:26 PM
Tigger
Oct 7 2014, 08:36 PM
Steve K
Oct 7 2014, 08:29 PM
Iceland acted like an unprincipled double crossing thief
We've disagreed on this before, but then our banking sector also acted like double crossing thieves as well but we seemed to overlook that........

And in other news bank deposits of up to one million quid are now protected by the taxpayer, up from the previous £85k. It seems the "thieving" banks who complained it would hurt their business if they had to hold larger reserves to compensate savers have once again got you and me to underwrite their gambling habits.

No hint of Iceland here...........
It was Iceland the state that acted like a double crossing unprincipled thief. Their banks were just woefully incompetent - like many of ours were.

And you are grossly misrepresenting that latest proposal, the extension to £1M is ONLY to cover transitory items like house buying monies that right now have a horrible short term vulnerability for ordinary people potentially left with a massive mortgage, no house and the money gone. BTW seems we are doing this to comply with an EU directive.

Private banks SHOULD NOT be relying on the taxpayer to cover any potential losses by anyone who leaves money in their safe keeping, they should have ample reserves and be properly run and regulated, if this was the case we would not be on the hook once again. But it would seem that being responsible is bad for the balance sheet.

The fact this is even happening at all is a disgrace and yet more back door support for this pampered "industry".


So instead of fessing up that you got it wrong on that £1M you go back to more rubbish

It isn't banks being protected, it is people like you and me when their house sale proceeds are in temporary acounts. Perhaps you didn't notice that the shareholders in the banks that got assistance lost just about everything. Who else do you think should pay?


jeevesnwooster
Oct 8 2014, 03:26 PM
. .
SK
 
No one is going to get me to praise Goldman Sachs, but I'll defend them. They had the balls to bet against the market in mid 2007. They could have lost big time but, as I posted, those who sold short did make big gains.

Just like those who bet on the Grand National winner did this year. Anyone going to say they were immoral for taking a risk?


As c-too has sort of alluded to, those who bet on huge losses, compound losses and who INTENTIONALLY cheat the markets and worst of all, steal money legally, really are the scum of the earth, that is rampant greed, the sort encouraged by our economic system

Quote:
 
Put like that yes but then there's the morality of those that are there to deal with accidents. If there were none they'd be out of a job. Most people see the lawyers as very bad people and the higher paid A&E surgeons as heroes. Bizarre isn't it.


And those two examples are completely incomparable


Are they? I guess with thinking like that you'd condemn anyone who sells insurance or sells annuities too. Buying and selling futures is part of enabling others to mitigate their risks. It takes big balls to do it so yes why not let them have the rewards of those risks.

And perhaps you would tell us some examples of those you say "steal money legally" so we can judge just how rare and how insignificant that actually is.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jeevesnwooster
҈
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 9 2014, 07:50 PM
Are they? I guess with thinking like that you'd condemn anyone who sells insurance or sells annuities too. Buying and selling futures is part of enabling others to mitigate their risks. It takes big balls to do it so yes why not let them have the rewards of those risks.

And perhaps you would tell us some examples of those you say "steal money legally" so we can judge just how rare and how insignificant that actually is.
Just the phrasing you use "buying and selling futures".. lol, I see something deeply wrong with that.

Does it really take big balls to gamble on the economy and to potentially compound misery for millions of people? Rastani seems not to give a flying toss, I bet none of the others do too, bankers are a blase bunch.


Stealing money legally?

Tax avoiders and evaders (rare and insignificant by your logic no doubt), bosses who pay too little for the work done (also rare and insignificant I presume), banks foreclosing on homeowners under technical clauses in contracts when it's morally and fiscally unfair to do so, banks throwing excessive charges at customers on low-medium incomes. Virtual slavery in the UK via forcing people to do unpaid work, not just on the dole but in the case of some graduate apprenticeships. Real slavery out in the second and third world by way of companies (based in the UK), using unscrupulous employers in their supply chains. Taxes of all kinds being too high for someone on a low-income, utilities companies charging the highest bills they can get away with on non-prepayment meters unless challenged, utilities companies charging the highest bills they can get away with on prepayment meters even if challenged.

The list is more or less endless, there are people stealing money from others left right and center, yes those who sell insurance are morally bankrupt due to the fact they often know that the policies and premiums are unfair.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 9 2014, 07:50 PM


So instead of fessing up that you got it wrong on that £1M you go back to more rubbish

It isn't banks being protected, it is people like you and me when their house sale proceeds are in temporary acounts. Perhaps you didn't notice that the shareholders in the banks that got assistance lost just about everything. Who else do you think should pay?


You naughty boy you've been hanging around PV for too long!

Perhaps you can explain to me why there is even a need to protect peoples money in private banks? (mission creep is of course assured here, mark my words) Surely the security of a depositers cash is the bare minimum any bank should offer? Farming out this responsibility to the taxpayer is an effin disgrace.

In fact in the spirit of things I propose we all cancel our car insurance and life policies, after all I'm unlikely to have an accident at the moment and I feel perfectly fine, I'm sure you get the message and can see where I'm going with this...........? ;-)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jeevesnwooster
҈
[ *  *  * ]
Tigger
Oct 9 2014, 09:03 PM
You naughty boy you've been hanging around PV for too long!

Perhaps you can explain to me why there is even a need to protect peoples money in private banks? (mission creep is of course assured here, mark my words) Surely the security of a depositers cash is the bare minimum any bank should offer? Farming out this responsibility to the taxpayer is an effin disgrace.

In fact in the spirit of things I propose we all cancel our car insurance and life policies, after all I'm unlikely to have an accident at the moment and I feel perfectly fine, I'm sure you get the message and can see where I'm going with this...........? ;-)
!clp!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Oct 9 2014, 09:03 PM
Steve K
Oct 9 2014, 07:50 PM


So instead of fessing up that you got it wrong on that £1M you go back to more rubbish

It isn't banks being protected, it is people like you and me when their house sale proceeds are in temporary acounts. Perhaps you didn't notice that the shareholders in the banks that got assistance lost just about everything. Who else do you think should pay?


You naughty boy you've been hanging around PV for too long!

Perhaps you can explain to me why there is even a need to protect peoples money in private banks? (mission creep is of course assured here, mark my words) Surely the security of a depositers cash is the bare minimum any bank should offer? Farming out this responsibility to the taxpayer is an effin disgrace.

In fact in the spirit of things I propose we all cancel our car insurance and life policies, after all I'm unlikely to have an accident at the moment and I feel perfectly fine, I'm sure you get the message and can see where I'm going with this...........? ;-)
You dont need insurance until you need insurance, and when you need t you will find that you can never have enough, even wish you had paid a little bit more. A claim for road traffic injuries can bankrupt you and take away your home if you dont have third party insurance , and do you remeber the homes recently flooded where the home owners had not taken out insurance to cut their costs?
The first rule of buisiness is that you sell your good and services at a price the purchaser is willing to pay, and the person that decides that is the customer. Ticket touts for major events make a living from that fact.;
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Oct 9 2014, 11:00 PM
Tigger
Oct 9 2014, 09:03 PM
Steve K
Oct 9 2014, 07:50 PM


So instead of fessing up that you got it wrong on that £1M you go back to more rubbish

It isn't banks being protected, it is people like you and me when their house sale proceeds are in temporary acounts. Perhaps you didn't notice that the shareholders in the banks that got assistance lost just about everything. Who else do you think should pay?


You naughty boy you've been hanging around PV for too long!

Perhaps you can explain to me why there is even a need to protect peoples money in private banks? (mission creep is of course assured here, mark my words) Surely the security of a depositers cash is the bare minimum any bank should offer? Farming out this responsibility to the taxpayer is an effin disgrace.

In fact in the spirit of things I propose we all cancel our car insurance and life policies, after all I'm unlikely to have an accident at the moment and I feel perfectly fine, I'm sure you get the message and can see where I'm going with this...........? ;-)
You dont need insurance until you need insurance, and when you need t you will find that you can never have enough, even wish you had paid a little bit more. A claim for road traffic injuries can bankrupt you and take away your home if you dont have third party insurance , and do you remeber the homes recently flooded where the home owners had not taken out insurance to cut their costs?
The first rule of buisiness is that you sell your good and services at a price the purchaser is willing to pay, and the person that decides that is the customer. Ticket touts for major events make a living from that fact.;


Sadly, insurance is very easy to pay for but not so easy to claim.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04kf8q5
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
jeevesnwooster
Oct 9 2014, 09:47 PM
Tigger
Oct 9 2014, 09:03 PM
You naughty boy you've been hanging around PV for too long!

Perhaps you can explain to me why there is even a need to protect peoples money in private banks? (mission creep is of course assured here, mark my words) Surely the security of a depositers cash is the bare minimum any bank should offer? Farming out this responsibility to the taxpayer is an effin disgrace.

In fact in the spirit of things I propose we all cancel our car insurance and life policies, after all I'm unlikely to have an accident at the moment and I feel perfectly fine, I'm sure you get the message and can see where I'm going with this...........? ;-)
!clp!


Are you two really that unable to understand the concept of layered protection or even the need for confidence in a financial system? Maybe you want to go back to all money stored in mattresses. And Tigger seems you do not understand how house purchases work.

I almost hope you find yourself in a house buying chain and your buyer places say £250k in your account and your mortgage provider has increased your mortgage to £300k and releases those funds so you can buy your house. At that moment the bank fails.

Right now you have lost all the money, your house and now owe £300k. The first layer of responsibility - bank's shareholder's stakes will be used first but not be enough. So is it not unreasonable that the end regulator the BofE levies all banks a small amount to make sure that type of case is added to the £85k protection they already provide for private accounts.

And if you think £85k is a lot of money it isn't to a new pensioner




Edited by Steve K, Oct 10 2014, 09:00 AM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
jeevesnwooster
Oct 9 2014, 08:24 PM
Just the phrasing you use "buying and selling futures".. lol, I see something deeply wrong with that. . . .

Ever bought a ticket for a show or a product for the shelf? Of course you have so now you've conceded the principle of buying futures is it just the magnitude of financial futures trading you want to discuss? Now look at the actual % of trading it represents - less than your own futures trading.

jeevesnwooster
Oct 9 2014, 08:24 PM
. .The list is more or less endless, there are people stealing money from others left right and center, yes those who sell insurance are morally bankrupt due to the fact they often know that the policies and premiums are unfair.

So you want insurance to be a free public service paid for by taxpayers (other than yourself of course) then? Or maybe you want it banned? Since you haven't actually quoted any excessive profits made in the industry (if such exist) by what criteria do you consider insurance to be unfair?


With the hundreds of thousands of people in the financial industry and the millions of transactions there are bound to be some bad eggs and bad deals. In my experience a lot of those are the customers.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Oct 9 2014, 11:30 PM
Tytoalba
Oct 9 2014, 11:00 PM
Tigger
Oct 9 2014, 09:03 PM
Steve K
Oct 9 2014, 07:50 PM


So instead of fessing up that you got it wrong on that £1M you go back to more rubbish

It isn't banks being protected, it is people like you and me when their house sale proceeds are in temporary acounts. Perhaps you didn't notice that the shareholders in the banks that got assistance lost just about everything. Who else do you think should pay?


You naughty boy you've been hanging around PV for too long!

Perhaps you can explain to me why there is even a need to protect peoples money in private banks? (mission creep is of course assured here, mark my words) Surely the security of a depositers cash is the bare minimum any bank should offer? Farming out this responsibility to the taxpayer is an effin disgrace.

In fact in the spirit of things I propose we all cancel our car insurance and life policies, after all I'm unlikely to have an accident at the moment and I feel perfectly fine, I'm sure you get the message and can see where I'm going with this...........? ;-)
You dont need insurance until you need insurance, and when you need t you will find that you can never have enough, even wish you had paid a little bit more. A claim for road traffic injuries can bankrupt you and take away your home if you dont have third party insurance , and do you remeber the homes recently flooded where the home owners had not taken out insurance to cut their costs?
The first rule of buisiness is that you sell your good and services at a price the purchaser is willing to pay, and the person that decides that is the customer. Ticket touts for major events make a living from that fact.;


Sadly, insurance is very easy to pay for but not so easy to claim.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04kf8q5
Tat is true, but you know that there area great many false claims,{whiplash injuries etc} which meed investigating before payout. The protest needs to be robust toprotect us all and to keep premiums down. Contracts are enforceable in law. They, of course know what they are doing, theirown buisiness and the small print is usuallyin theeir favour, and why, and most of us are unsure, and often do not read the contract at all. Caveat emptor applies.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Oct 10 2014, 10:40 AM
Rich
Oct 9 2014, 11:30 PM
Tytoalba
Oct 9 2014, 11:00 PM
Tigger
Oct 9 2014, 09:03 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
You dont need insurance until you need insurance, and when you need t you will find that you can never have enough, even wish you had paid a little bit more. A claim for road traffic injuries can bankrupt you and take away your home if you dont have third party insurance , and do you remeber the homes recently flooded where the home owners had not taken out insurance to cut their costs?
The first rule of buisiness is that you sell your good and services at a price the purchaser is willing to pay, and the person that decides that is the customer. Ticket touts for major events make a living from that fact.;


Sadly, insurance is very easy to pay for but not so easy to claim.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04kf8q5
Tat is true, but you know that there area great many false claims,{whiplash injuries etc} which meed investigating before payout. The protest needs to be robust toprotect us all and to keep premiums down. Contracts are enforceable in law. They, of course know what they are doing, theirown buisiness and the small print is usuallyin theeir favour, and why, and most of us are unsure, and often do not read the contract at all. Caveat emptor applies.


But insurance does not end with the insurers, they insure themselves against claims with another insurer and so on and so on, so they do not lose out, this industry definitely needs a regulator that is patently transparent and above interference from vested interests.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
There are two BIG problems with insurance

1. Most people (ie the market) buy insurance based only on the lowest premium - so we get what we pay for.
2. Too many people fiddle their insurance and claims so insurers are very very cautious about paying out.

and Tyto we do have an Insurance Regulator. The BofE run it. In a feat of idiot naming they recently renamed it the Prudential Regulation Authority.

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/pra/Pages/supervision/activities/reginsurance.aspx





Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jeevesnwooster
҈
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 10 2014, 09:15 AM
jeevesnwooster
Oct 9 2014, 08:24 PM
Just the phrasing you use "buying and selling futures".. lol, I see something deeply wrong with that. . . .

Ever bought a ticket for a show or a product for the shelf? Of course you have so now you've conceded the principle of buying futures is it just the magnitude of financial futures trading you want to discuss? Now look at the actual % of trading it represents - less than your own futures trading.

jeevesnwooster
Oct 9 2014, 08:24 PM
. .The list is more or less endless, there are people stealing money from others left right and center, yes those who sell insurance are morally bankrupt due to the fact they often know that the policies and premiums are unfair.

So you want insurance to be a free public service paid for by taxpayers (other than yourself of course) then? Or maybe you want it banned? Since you haven't actually quoted any excessive profits made in the industry (if such exist) by what criteria do you consider insurance to be unfair?


With the hundreds of thousands of people in the financial industry and the millions of transactions there are bound to be some bad eggs and bad deals. In my experience a lot of those are the customers.
There's no need to put loads of words in my mouth, I never made those extreme claims you've already attributed to me.

The insurance industry is pretty unscrupulous, I thought this was common knowledge?

"bad eggs" and "bad deals", only a few?

I think there are far more than a few, we both know that.

And as for buying futures, yet again you make a silly comparison. You cannot compare "buying a future" to buying a ticket for a show.

The fact is I don't know what I'd do with the insurance industry lol, do you know what you'd do to make the insurance industry less unscrupulous?

You understand my position is that the system is rotten from the bottom up and you're asking me questions about complex products traded on the markets..
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 10 2014, 12:38 PM
The BofE run it. In a feat of idiot naming they recently renamed it the Prudential Regulation Authority.

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/pra/Pages/supervision/activities/reginsurance.aspx





You coudn't make it up.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Oct 9 2014, 11:00 PM
Tigger
Oct 9 2014, 09:03 PM
Steve K
Oct 9 2014, 07:50 PM


So instead of fessing up that you got it wrong on that £1M you go back to more rubbish

It isn't banks being protected, it is people like you and me when their house sale proceeds are in temporary acounts. Perhaps you didn't notice that the shareholders in the banks that got assistance lost just about everything. Who else do you think should pay?


You naughty boy you've been hanging around PV for too long!

Perhaps you can explain to me why there is even a need to protect peoples money in private banks? (mission creep is of course assured here, mark my words) Surely the security of a depositers cash is the bare minimum any bank should offer? Farming out this responsibility to the taxpayer is an effin disgrace.

In fact in the spirit of things I propose we all cancel our car insurance and life policies, after all I'm unlikely to have an accident at the moment and I feel perfectly fine, I'm sure you get the message and can see where I'm going with this...........? ;-)
You dont need insurance until you need insurance, and when you need t you will find that you can never have enough, even wish you had paid a little bit more. A claim for road traffic injuries can bankrupt you and take away your home if you dont have third party insurance , and do you remeber the homes recently flooded where the home owners had not taken out insurance to cut their costs?
The first rule of buisiness is that you sell your good and services at a price the purchaser is willing to pay, and the person that decides that is the customer. Ticket touts for major events make a living from that fact.;


Up for the most bleedin obvious post of the week ^
Edited by Tigger, Oct 10 2014, 01:34 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 10 2014, 08:59 AM
jeevesnwooster
Oct 9 2014, 09:47 PM
Tigger
Oct 9 2014, 09:03 PM
You naughty boy you've been hanging around PV for too long!

Perhaps you can explain to me why there is even a need to protect peoples money in private banks? (mission creep is of course assured here, mark my words) Surely the security of a depositers cash is the bare minimum any bank should offer? Farming out this responsibility to the taxpayer is an effin disgrace.

In fact in the spirit of things I propose we all cancel our car insurance and life policies, after all I'm unlikely to have an accident at the moment and I feel perfectly fine, I'm sure you get the message and can see where I'm going with this...........? ;-)
!clp!


Are you two really that unable to understand the concept of layered protection or even the need for confidence in a financial system? Maybe you want to go back to all money stored in mattresses. And Tigger seems you do not understand how house purchases work.

I almost hope you find yourself in a house buying chain and your buyer places say £250k in your account and your mortgage provider has increased your mortgage to £300k and releases those funds so you can buy your house. At that moment the bank fails.

Right now you have lost all the money, your house and now owe £300k. The first layer of responsibility - bank's shareholder's stakes will be used first but not be enough. So is it not unreasonable that the end regulator the BofE levies all banks a small amount to make sure that type of case is added to the £85k protection they already provide for private accounts.

And if you think £85k is a lot of money it isn't to a new pensioner




What I am unable to understand Steve is why the taxpayer should be insuring banks against failure, you may remember there was a lot of talk of forcing the banks to hold far greater reserves, they naturally strongly objected complaining it would hurt their business!

The point you are deliberately overlooking is the fact that having those reserves would curb the riskier trading that goes on, add to this the FACT that so called high street banking has yet to be seperated from the "investment" side of the business and you may well find your supposedly safe cash being spunked in the casino, totally unacceptable in my opinion and of course this has everything to do with this taxpayer wet wipe.

I repeat, banks should be responsibly run and not reliant on the taxpayer for liability insurance, make them trade responsibly and hold to account those who flout the laws, those in the City who cannot get by on six or seven figure salariy AND find acting in a responsible and legal manner rather onerous should be invited to leave......
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Oct 10 2014, 01:27 PM
Steve K
Oct 10 2014, 12:38 PM
The BofE run it. In a feat of idiot naming they recently renamed it the Prudential Regulation Authority.

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/pra/Pages/supervision/activities/reginsurance.aspx





You coudn't make it up.
Indeed. The old saying as safe as the Bank of England is now a rather sick joke.

It's almost become acceptable that dodgy behaviour and criminal practice will occur hence the need to underpin the financial services sector, given it's one time reputation for probity you can see just how far things have slipped.
Edited by Tigger, Oct 10 2014, 01:54 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 10 2014, 08:59 AM
jeevesnwooster
Oct 9 2014, 09:47 PM
Tigger
Oct 9 2014, 09:03 PM
You naughty boy you've been hanging around PV for too long!

Perhaps you can explain to me why there is even a need to protect peoples money in private banks?
!clp!


Are you two really that unable to understand the concept of layered protection or even the need for confidence in a financial system?
Are you two really that unable to understand the concept of layered protection or even the need for confidence in a financial system?

Confidence is absolutely Vital ........ it was/is loss of confidence in the system that is holding the recovery back today.

G Brown knew the crack, he would have restored confidence one way-or-another.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Oct 10 2014, 07:35 PM
Steve K
Oct 10 2014, 08:59 AM
jeevesnwooster
Oct 9 2014, 09:47 PM
Tigger
Oct 9 2014, 09:03 PM
You naughty boy you've been hanging around PV for too long!

Perhaps you can explain to me why there is even a need to protect peoples money in private banks?
!clp!


Are you two really that unable to understand the concept of layered protection or even the need for confidence in a financial system?
Are you two really that unable to understand the concept of layered protection or even the need for confidence in a financial system?

Confidence is absolutely Vital ........ it was/is loss of confidence in the system that is holding the recovery back today.

G Brown knew the crack, he would have restored confidence one way-or-another.
Confidence in that financial system should come from having a financial system that is not corrupt or constantly on the lookout for taxpayer handouts, it should also not prey on the society it is alleged to serve nor should it buy politicians in bulk.

That is how you restore confidence, underwriting the fuckers yet again is not a sign of confidence but a sign that they cannot be trusted to keep their own house in order, if you are unwilling to understand that you and millions of others deserve everything you get from this supposed industry.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jeevesnwooster
҈
[ *  *  * ]
I have to say Tigger, you are saying everything that needs to be said.

What else can you come up with really? A defense of ANY of our idiot politicians and their policies, nah. That's not right, what we need is the truth and what you've said is exactly that, no BS.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Oct 10 2014, 07:50 PM
Affa
Oct 10 2014, 07:35 PM
Steve K
Oct 10 2014, 08:59 AM
jeevesnwooster
Oct 9 2014, 09:47 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep


Are you two really that unable to understand the concept of layered protection or even the need for confidence in a financial system?


Confidence is absolutely Vital ........ it was/is loss of confidence in the system that is holding the recovery back today.

G Brown knew the crack, he would have restored confidence one way-or-another.
Confidence in that financial system should come from having a financial system that is not corrupt or constantly on the lookout for taxpayer handouts, it should also not prey on the society it is alleged to serve nor should it buy politicians in bulk.

That is how you restore confidence, underwriting the fuckers yet again is not a sign of confidence but a sign that they cannot be trusted to keep their own house in order, if you are unwilling to understand that you and millions of others deserve everything you get from this supposed industry.

Sure thing Tigs, that absolutely essential thing 'confidence' should come from trust in the integrity of the Banks (first), bankers (2nd), and the system (3rd).

All G Brown could do was tamper with the system (3rd in importance) and I am confident he would have been more aggressive with 'regulations'. More Obama like.
My motive for introducing Brown is this, and to draw comparison with the gutless Osborne.

So 1 & 2, the integrity of banks and bankers (here in the UK) isn't going to happen voluntarily, so the government must tie their hands more securely ....... and not fight other's attempts to do so in the courts.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Oct 10 2014, 01:48 PM
. . .What I am unable to understand Steve is why the taxpayer should be insuring banks against failure, you may remember there was a lot of talk of forcing the banks to hold far greater reserves, they naturally strongly objected complaining it would hurt their business!

The point you are deliberately overlooking is the fact that having those reserves would curb the riskier trading that goes on, add to this the FACT that so called high street banking has yet to be seperated from the "investment" side of the business and you may well find your supposedly safe cash being spunked in the casino, totally unacceptable in my opinion and of course this has everything to do with this taxpayer wet wipe.

I repeat, banks should be responsibly run and not reliant on the taxpayer for liability insurance, make them trade responsibly and hold to account those who flout the laws, those in the City who cannot get by on six or seven figure salariy AND find acting in a responsible and legal manner rather onerous should be invited to leave......
You are Rip van Winkle and I claim my £5

As you certainly seem to have slept through the last years of imposed stress tests forcing the banks to increase their financial reserves just as you ask for but seem to think did not happen. It did.

and you seem to be confusing insuring depositors against bank failure with insuring banks against failure that is rather a myth. We've only had one bank rescue of note Norther cRock and just who do you think was bailed out? Shareholders lost big time, execs lost jobs, many employees lost jobs but yes private depositors were insured.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
jeevesnwooster
Oct 10 2014, 01:23 PM
Steve K
Oct 10 2014, 09:15 AM
jeevesnwooster
Oct 9 2014, 08:24 PM
Just the phrasing you use "buying and selling futures".. lol, I see something deeply wrong with that. . . .

Ever bought a ticket for a show or a product for the shelf? Of course you have so now you've conceded the principle of buying futures is it just the magnitude of financial futures trading you want to discuss? Now look at the actual % of trading it represents - less than your own futures trading.

jeevesnwooster
Oct 9 2014, 08:24 PM
. .The list is more or less endless, there are people stealing money from others left right and center, yes those who sell insurance are morally bankrupt due to the fact they often know that the policies and premiums are unfair.

So you want insurance to be a free public service paid for by taxpayers (other than yourself of course) then? Or maybe you want it banned? Since you haven't actually quoted any excessive profits made in the industry (if such exist) by what criteria do you consider insurance to be unfair?


With the hundreds of thousands of people in the financial industry and the millions of transactions there are bound to be some bad eggs and bad deals. In my experience a lot of those are the customers.
There's no need to put loads of words in my mouth, I never made those extreme claims you've already attributed to me.

The insurance industry is pretty unscrupulous, I thought this was common knowledge?

"bad eggs" and "bad deals", only a few?

I think there are far more than a few, we both know that.

And as for buying futures, yet again you make a silly comparison. You cannot compare "buying a future" to buying a ticket for a show.

The fact is I don't know what I'd do with the insurance industry lol, do you know what you'd do to make the insurance industry less unscrupulous?

You understand my position is that the system is rotten from the bottom up and you're asking me questions about complex products traded on the markets..


Seems you're putting words in my mouth with that "we both know that"

And buying a ticket to a show is speculating on its future value to you. I thought it'd be a simple enough example to understand. I guess explaining why trading in future values of currencies might be an essential part of international trading in order to square away risk would be several steps too far.

As you ask what would I do for insurance. I'd kick both sides of the problem

1. Make it a default imprisonable offence to falsify an insurance proposal or claim. I am so sick of hearing smug bastards telling me how they fiddled their kids car insurance, got a spare pair of contact lenses by pretending to lose one, got a false valued receipt for a bracelet they pretend to have lost etc etc. Bang the fraudulent lot of them in jail. And don't get me started on false whiplash claims.

2. Make insurers pay the HMRC penalty interest rate for payments delayed more than 10 days after the loss is reported

3. Make insurers pay the actual loss of car value to the owner on write off and not the Glass's guide trade in value.

4. Councils to pay the house insurance differential for properties they gave approval to be built on flood plains

5. Failure to declare material facts get outs to be judged in the light of the degree to which the insurer prominently declared material facts.


But if you're so convinced insurance is such a rip off please explain why the margins are so low. I picked Axa at random and what do we find? Less than 6% underlying profit on revenue in UK & Ireland. It'll be less after interest and tax.

http://www.axa.co.uk/about/our-company/financial-results/



Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jeevesnwooster
҈
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 10 2014, 11:57 PM

So you want insurance to be a free public service paid for by taxpayers (other than yourself of course) then? Or maybe you want it banned? Since you haven't actually quoted any excessive profits made in the industry (if such exist) by what criteria do you consider insurance to be unfair?


Yet again you put words into my mouth.

Insurance is unfair due to the high premiums a lot of people have to pay, whether or not the companies make a huge profit doesn't come into it

The companies are multi-billion pound enterprises that often offer far more than just insurance, saying that these companies aren't rolling in money is just untrue. I feel no "sympathy" for them weirdly enough. Their cashflow sustains them

Quote:
 
Seems you're putting words in my mouth with that "we both know that"

And buying a ticket to a show is speculating on its future value to you. I thought it'd be a simple enough example to understand.


Quote:
 
I guess explaining why trading in future values of currencies might be an essential part of international trading in order to square away risk would be several steps too far.



And I will repeat, there is a fundamental difference. When people speculate on the future value of a currency and WANT its value to go down.... people will suffer as a result.

Your passive-aggressive insults are a nice way of distracting from my point.

Quote:
 
As you ask what would I do for insurance. I'd kick both sides of the problem

1. Make it a default imprisonable offence to falsify an insurance proposal or claim. I am so sick of hearing smug bastards telling me how they fiddled their kids car insurance, got a spare pair of contact lenses by pretending to lose one, got a false valued receipt for a bracelet they pretend to have lost etc etc. Bang the fraudulent lot of them in jail. And don't get me started on false whiplash claims.

2. Make insurers pay the HMRC penalty interest rate for payments delayed more than 10 days after the loss is reported

3. Make insurers pay the actual loss of car value to the owner on write off and not the Glass's guide trade in value.

4. Councils to pay the house insurance differential for properties they gave approval to be built on flood plains

5. Failure to declare material facts get outs to be judged in the light of the degree to which the insurer prominently declared material facts.


But if you're so convinced insurance is such a rip off please explain why the margins are so low. I picked Axa at random and what do we find? Less than 6% underlying profit on revenue in UK & Ireland. It'll be less after interest and tax.

http://www.axa.co.uk/about/our-company/financial-results/


I had a quick look and the picture maybe isn't black and white, that said a lot of people are still bankrupted by their insurance company and a lot of people's premiums ar far too high.

The companies as I said are multi-billion pound money spinners so it's not fair to treat them like other types of companies, just having a cashflow that large inevitably changes the amount of flexibility they have, a small % of profit represents a large amount of money.

Also looks like a lot of lawyers and car hire companies are making a huge, tidy profit out of the industry regardless of the insurers of themselves supposedly "suffering". I don't think that's right. That list you drew up sounds possibly reasonable, although sticking people in prison for making fradulent claims over relatively small thigns could be a bit harsh
Edited by jeevesnwooster, Oct 11 2014, 04:28 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
jeevesnwooster
Oct 11 2014, 04:26 PM
Steve K
Oct 10 2014, 11:57 PM

So you want insurance to be a free public service paid for by taxpayers (other than yourself of course) then? Or maybe you want it banned? Since you haven't actually quoted any excessive profits made in the industry (if such exist) by what criteria do you consider insurance to be unfair?


Yet again you put words into my mouth. . . .


!nono!  ::) That's my original Oct 10th point you objected to before, you've just misedited the quote so it looks like I said it again first thing today.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jeevesnwooster
҈
[ *  *  * ]
Yes it seems you're right, I apologise the nested quotes do give me a bit of eyeache sometimes, I must have thought it sounded like what you wrote.  !bgrin!
Edited by jeevesnwooster, Oct 11 2014, 05:40 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Register for Free
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply