RJD

Dec 2 2014, 08:15 AM

Montjoie

Dec 1 2014, 09:29 PM

RJD

Dec 1 2014, 07:29 PM

Montjoie

Dec 1 2014, 07:07 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

I really do not understand your point. Many of the so-called rich are so because of assets created and owned elsewhere. If a French Investor comes to the UK with access to legal finance, is a person of good standing who wishes to buy a FTSE listed company which has assets in the UK why should I object? I certainly would wish to be sure that the State regulates such that black money was not involved and that Employment Laws respected. What is your point?

Your point was that legal is enough for something to be ok. And that somehow it shouldn't be changed, based on the fact that State regulation is always a bad thing. But then if you go down the liberal path, it should apply to everything, including freedom of movement (and everything). But people like you seem to only agree to liberalism when it comes to easy money.

Your draw a false conclusion from an assumption. I am for State regulation in the interests of the majority of the people in the UK. I do not believe in unfettered capitalism and I have nothing against French businessmen who wish to invest legally gotten gains here in the UK.

C-too

Dec 1 2014, 09:55 PM

RJD

Dec 1 2014, 04:47 PM

ACH1967

Dec 1 2014, 04:17 PM

Affa

Dec 1 2014, 02:35 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepThings that do make a difference!

When you say invest what you actually mean is borrow isn't it? Borrow then invest then cross your fingers.

Improved wages! I agree. Especially for those on the lowest pay. Increase the NMW.

Lower the cost of living. Absolutely. Lets have some anti trust organisations that are actually say antitrust.

Borrowing at the cost of future generations to fuel current consumption is now what the left term as investment. Totally immoral.

Making cuts and borrowing/investment from 2010 is what NL suggested, the Tories are doing exactly that in a belated effort to catch up with NL. Had they started earlier they may well have halved the deficit by 2013 as NL claimed it would.

AndyK

Dec 2 2014, 08:32 AM

C-too

Dec 1 2014, 09:55 PM

RJD

Dec 1 2014, 04:47 PM

ACH1967

Dec 1 2014, 04:17 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepThings that do make a difference!

Borrowing at the cost of future generations to fuel current consumption is now what the left term as investment. Totally immoral.

Making cuts and borrowing/investment from 2010 is what NL suggested, the Tories are doing exactly that in a belated effort to catch up with NL. Had they started earlier they may well have halved the deficit by 2013 as NL claimed it would.

It wouldn't have made any difference then and its not going to make any difference now.

They printed money reduced the value of sterling by 30% and made absolutely no difference to industrial production, nor any boost in exports.

We no longer have the capacity to produce on demand and (obviously) the exports we currently produce are not price sensitive, so all reducing sterling did was reduce our foreign currency take and worsen the trade deficit.

Given these facts we can not trade our way out of budget or trade deficit whatever anybody says, infrastructure build will take decades to bridge the deficits we are seeing and we havent got the money to invest anyway.

Sorry, but the only way we are going to fix the current problems is to make budget cuts and/or reduce our population level to fit the income we have coming in.

Montjoie

Dec 2 2014, 08:23 AM

RJD

Dec 2 2014, 08:15 AM

Montjoie

Dec 1 2014, 09:29 PM

RJD

Dec 1 2014, 07:29 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

Your point was that legal is enough for something to be ok. And that somehow it shouldn't be changed, based on the fact that State regulation is always a bad thing. But then if you go down the liberal path, it should apply to everything, including freedom of movement (and everything). But people like you seem to only agree to liberalism when it comes to easy money.

Your draw a false conclusion from an assumption. I am for State regulation in the interests of the majority of the people in the UK. I do not believe in unfettered capitalism and I have nothing against French businessmen who wish to invest legally gotten gains here in the UK.

Am I? You don't seem to believe State regulation to be a good thing when it comes to the banking system. And then you unearth the good old myth of fine foreign investors being the constituants of that 10% top layer (must have to look beyond the handful tycoons from the corrupt oil & steel industries to understand what the top 1% or 10% are). You're in denial.

The fact that the gap has widened means something is not working as it should in your economy.

Affa

Dec 2 2014, 02:29 PM

It will be interesting to discover whether those that insist the country cannot 'trade itself' back to prosperity, that more spending cuts WILL be the only way have the sense of recall in the coming years when their entire argument is shown false?

There have been a number of think tank projections published over the last ten years that have predicted the UK being the largest economy in Europe. I wonder what these (highly regarded) professional analysts know that right wingers can't grasp?

Montjoie

Dec 2 2014, 03:07 PM

@RJD

And here you again about that "fundamental problem that it has no Lender of Last Resort". Which you never bothered backing up with facts.

Also, I get from your last post that you should be ok with the Tobin tax right?

RJD

Dec 2 2014, 03:55 PM

Montjoie

Dec 2 2014, 03:07 PM

@RJD

And here you again about that "fundamental problem that it has no Lender of Last Resort". Which you never bothered backing up with facts.

Also, I get from your last post that you should be ok with the Tobin tax right?

There is no Lender of Last Resort so why do I have to prove it does not exist?

As for the Tobin Tax what is it for other than collect revenues? Even the EU Commission agree that such a tax will dampen economic growth. It will also be ineffective if it drives business out of the EU to New York or elsewhere. Ask yourself why the Swedes dumped it?

Quote:

 

The ECB was right to intervene as lender of last resort, but structural reforms are still needed to save the Eurozone.

Quote:

 

Concluding remarks

In this column, we argue that the ECB should also take on the LOLR role for the significant banks when it starts supervision. That would make the governance system incentive compatible (i.e. provide the right incentives to the ECB for conducting good supervision).

By the same token, the national central banks should keep the LOLR role for the local national banks, as the primary responsibility for supervising these banks would also remain at the national level.

Quote:

 

The Swedish experience of a transaction tax was with purchase or sale of equity securities, fixed income securities and derivatives. In global international currency trading, however, the situation could, some argue, look quite different. In 2000, Round argued as follows:

[The Tobin tax] could boost world trade by helping to stabilize exchange rates. Wildly fluctuating rates play havoc with businesses dependent on foreign exchange as prices and profits move up and down, depending on the relative value of the currencies being used. When importers and exporters can’t be certain from one day to the next what their money is worth, economic planning – including job creation – goes out the window. Reduced exchange-rate volatility means that businesses would need to spend less money ‘hedging’ (buying currencies in anticipation of future price changes), thus freeing up capital for investment in new production.

RJD

Dec 2 2014, 03:55 PM

As for the Tobin Tax what is it for other than collect revenues? Even the EU Commission agree that such a tax will dampen economic growth. It will also be ineffective if it drives business out of the EU to New York or elsewhere. Ask yourself why the Swedes dumped it?

Montjoie

Dec 3 2014, 01:08 PM

Your turn.

Quote:

 

ABSTRACT

The eurozone has experienced a liquidity squeeze since the outbreak of the European debt crisis, leading to a crisis of confidence. Whether the European Central Bank (ECB) can become the Lender of Last Resort (LLR) has become the focus of discussions. The author begins by clarifying the definition of the LLR, and then analyses the possibility of the ECB or other institutions assuming the role of the LLR, taking into account the eurozone’s special economic governance model and legal framework. As the conclusion shows, with the introduction of Outright Monetary Transactions (OMTs), a debt-purchasing programme, the ECB and the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) will jointly act as the eurozone LLR.

Montjoie

Dec 6 2014, 05:46 PM

Adding this piece to the thread for posterity:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07036337.2014.913039

Quote:

 

ABSTRACT

The eurozone has experienced a liquidity squeeze since the outbreak of the European debt crisis, leading to a crisis of confidence. Whether the European Central Bank (ECB) can become the Lender of Last Resort (LLR) has become the focus of discussions. The author begins by clarifying the definition of the LLR, and then analyses the possibility of the ECB or other institutions assuming the role of the LLR, taking into account the eurozone’s special economic governance model and legal framework. As the conclusion shows, with the introduction of Outright Monetary Transactions (OMTs), a debt-purchasing programme, the ECB and the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) will jointly act as the eurozone LLR.

Tigger

Dec 4 2014, 11:48 AM

RJD

Dec 2 2014, 03:55 PM

As for the Tobin Tax what is it for other than collect revenues? Even the EU Commission agree that such a tax will dampen economic growth. It will also be ineffective if it drives business out of the EU to New York or elsewhere. Ask yourself why the Swedes dumped it?

Let's try and educate this old boy one last time because despite being told on numerous occasions what the full implications of a Tobin Tax are he still keeps forgetting!

The idea that a fraction of one percent tax on transactions will trash financial services is clearly utter bollocks, the real fear with these parasites is the fact that EVERY transaction will have to be logged with a third party, this will ensure no more back room deals or large amounts of hot money suddenly appearing out of nowhere, and it will kill off bullshit like high frequency trading.

Frankly there is nothing there that is not to like if you want to see private banks and the City remove their boot from your face.

RJD

Dec 7 2014, 02:28 PM

Tigger

Dec 4 2014, 11:48 AM

RJD

Dec 2 2014, 03:55 PM

As for the Tobin Tax what is it for other than collect revenues? Even the EU Commission agree that such a tax will dampen economic growth. It will also be ineffective if it drives business out of the EU to New York or elsewhere. Ask yourself why the Swedes dumped it?

Let's try and educate this old boy one last time because despite being told on numerous occasions what the full implications of a Tobin Tax are he still keeps forgetting!

The idea that a fraction of one percent tax on transactions will trash financial services is clearly utter bollocks, the real fear with these parasites is the fact that EVERY transaction will have to be logged with a third party, this will ensure no more back room deals or large amounts of hot money suddenly appearing out of nowhere, and it will kill off bullshit like high frequency trading.

Frankly there is nothing there that is not to like if you want to see private banks and the City remove their boot from your face.

I see you continue to seek to hide your ignorance by first getting in your juvenile agist insults. We all know what the tax is, but you have to explain how such will be beneficial. It is not as if the UK has not had Stamp Duties on such transactions for a very long time, it is not as if this tax has not already been tried and failed and the EU admit it will moderate economic growth. So put all your schoolboy anger on one side and put up some coherent arguments as why we should embrace such taxes? Because others in the EU, who wish to punish London, think it a great idea is enough justification is insufficient proof for me. Probably far too much information for you though. Tig you really are a lightweight who does no research and your hyperbole carries no merit. Your line is sharp insults has become a major bore, grow up.

RJD

Dec 7 2014, 02:21 PM

Montjoie

Dec 6 2014, 05:46 PM

Adding this piece to the thread for posterity:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07036337.2014.913039

Quote:

 

ABSTRACT

The eurozone has experienced a liquidity squeeze since the outbreak of the European debt crisis, leading to a crisis of confidence. Whether the European Central Bank (ECB) can become the Lender of Last Resort (LLR) has become the focus of discussions. The author begins by clarifying the definition of the LLR, and then analyses the possibility of the ECB or other institutions assuming the role of the LLR, taking into account the eurozone’s special economic governance model and legal framework. As the conclusion shows, with the introduction of Outright Monetary Transactions (OMTs), a debt-purchasing programme, the ECB and the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) will jointly act as the eurozone LLR.

A sort of academic question at best. How can the ECB undertake such a role and the German Parliament allow it to do so? That is the question.

Montjoie

Dec 7 2014, 11:54 PM

RJD

Dec 7 2014, 02:21 PM

Montjoie

Dec 6 2014, 05:46 PM

Adding this piece to the thread for posterity:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07036337.2014.913039

Quote:

 

ABSTRACT

The eurozone has experienced a liquidity squeeze since the outbreak of the European debt crisis, leading to a crisis of confidence. Whether the European Central Bank (ECB) can become the Lender of Last Resort (LLR) has become the focus of discussions. The author begins by clarifying the definition of the LLR, and then analyses the possibility of the ECB or other institutions assuming the role of the LLR, taking into account the eurozone’s special economic governance model and legal framework. As the conclusion shows, with the introduction of Outright Monetary Transactions (OMTs), a debt-purchasing programme, the ECB and the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) will jointly act as the eurozone LLR.

A sort of academic question at best. How can the ECB undertake such a role and the German Parliament allow it to do so? That is the question.

It's not an academic question. It's what we currently have. Between the national central banks and the different programmes put in place during the crisis, we have all the grounds for an already functionnal Lender of Last Resort, even if it is not a unique entity. That's why people say the ECB acted as a Lender of Last Resort in 2011 and 2012, and that's the conclusion of the economists which I quoted for you. Now they're only discussing if it should all be supervised by a single entity (like the ECB) to mimic the usual scheme. It's really not that hard to understand.

Tigger

Dec 7 2014, 06:09 PM

RJD

Dec 7 2014, 02:28 PM

Tigger

Dec 4 2014, 11:48 AM

RJD

Dec 2 2014, 03:55 PM

As for the Tobin Tax what is it for other than collect revenues? Even the EU Commission agree that such a tax will dampen economic growth. It will also be ineffective if it drives business out of the EU to New York or elsewhere. Ask yourself why the Swedes dumped it?

Let's try and educate this old boy one last time because despite being told on numerous occasions what the full implications of a Tobin Tax are he still keeps forgetting!

The idea that a fraction of one percent tax on transactions will trash financial services is clearly utter bollocks, the real fear with these parasites is the fact that EVERY transaction will have to be logged with a third party, this will ensure no more back room deals or large amounts of hot money suddenly appearing out of nowhere, and it will kill off bullshit like high frequency trading.

Frankly there is nothing there that is not to like if you want to see private banks and the City remove their boot from your face.

I see you continue to seek to hide your ignorance by first getting in your juvenile agist insults. We all know what the tax is, but you have to explain how such will be beneficial. It is not as if the UK has not had Stamp Duties on such transactions for a very long time, it is not as if this tax has not already been tried and failed and the EU admit it will moderate economic growth. So put all your schoolboy anger on one side and put up some coherent arguments as why we should embrace such taxes? Because others in the EU, who wish to punish London, think it a great idea is enough justification is insufficient proof for me. Probably far too much information for you though. Tig you really are a lightweight who does no research and your hyperbole carries no merit. Your line is sharp insults has become a major bore, grow up.

More waffly BS, WHAT YOU NEED TO DO is read what my reply was instead of muddying the waters with pointless waffle and dreary lectures.

The reason a Tobin tax is opposed in the City is not because of the proposed .05% levy BUT BECAUSE ALL TRANSACTIONS WILL HAVE TO BE LOGGED WITH A THIRD PARTY and this will naturally bring scrutiny and make dodgy dealing harder. Understand now?

Would you like me to tell you this again in the next post?

RJD

Dec 8 2014, 08:19 AM

Montjoie

Dec 7 2014, 11:54 PM

RJD

Dec 7 2014, 02:21 PM

Montjoie

Dec 6 2014, 05:46 PM

Adding this piece to the thread for posterity:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07036337.2014.913039


Quoting limited to 4 levels deepThe author begins by clarifying the definition of the LLR, and then analyses the possibility of the ECB or other institutions assuming the role of the LLR, taking into account the eurozone’s special economic governance model and legal framework. As the conclusion shows, with the introduction of Outright Monetary Transactions (OMTs), a debt-purchasing programme, the ECB and the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) will jointly act as the eurozone LLR.

A sort of academic question at best. How can the ECB undertake such a role and the German Parliament allow it to do so? That is the question.

It's not an academic question. It's what we currently have. Between the national central banks and the different programmes put in place during the crisis, we have all the grounds for an already functionnal Lender of Last Resort, even if it is not a unique entity. That's why people say the ECB acted as a Lender of Last Resort in 2011 and 2012, and that's the conclusion of the economists which I quoted for you. Now they're only discussing if it should all be supervised by a single entity (like the ECB) to mimic the usual scheme. It's really not that hard to understand.

But you do not and that is the nub of the fight within the ECB. You may have the trappings of such but the Bundesbank denies its existence as they are legally required to under German basic Law. The test would be if there was a flight away from the Euro, but this is unlikely due to vested interests. The ECB is hamstrung, Draghi thwarted, he will go soon.

RJD

Dec 8 2014, 08:24 AM

Tigger

Dec 7 2014, 06:09 PM

RJD

Dec 7 2014, 02:28 PM

Tigger

Dec 4 2014, 11:48 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

I see you continue to seek to hide your ignorance by first getting in your juvenile agist insults. We all know what the tax is, but you have to explain how such will be beneficial. It is not as if the UK has not had Stamp Duties on such transactions for a very long time, it is not as if this tax has not already been tried and failed and the EU admit it will moderate economic growth. So put all your schoolboy anger on one side and put up some coherent arguments as why we should embrace such taxes? Because others in the EU, who wish to punish London, think it a great idea is enough justification is insufficient proof for me. Probably far too much information for you though. Tig you really are a lightweight who does no research and your hyperbole carries no merit. Your line is sharp insults has become a major bore, grow up.

More waffly BS, WHAT YOU NEED TO DO is read what my reply was instead of muddying the waters with pointless waffle and dreary lectures.

The reason a Tobin tax is opposed in the City is not because of the proposed .05% levy BUT BECAUSE ALL TRANSACTIONS WILL HAVE TO BE LOGGED WITH A THIRD PARTY and this will naturally bring scrutiny and make dodgy dealing harder. Understand now?

Would you like me to tell you this again in the next post?

Pity you do not understand the implications and only, as usual skim over the surface then claim some understanding of the matter. Truth is Tig. you are out of your depth and have cottoned on to a few phrases here and there that you think you understand. Waffle on boy waffle on. Now tell us about the experience of Sweden and the forecasts that such a Tax will hit economic growth. Or are you totally disinterested as was your ilk when the fundamentals of the introduction of the Euro were debated. Me thinks that details hurt your head therefore you avoid such.

Montjoie

Dec 8 2014, 02:43 PM

RJD

Dec 8 2014, 08:19 AM

Montjoie

Dec 7 2014, 11:54 PM

RJD

Dec 7 2014, 02:21 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deephttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07036337.2014.913039


Quoting limited to 4 levels deepThe author begins by clarifying the definition of the LLR, and then analyses the possibility of the ECB or other institutions assuming the role of the LLR, taking into account the eurozone’s special economic governance model and legal framework. As the conclusion shows, with the introduction of Outright Monetary Transactions (OMTs), a debt-purchasing programme, the ECB and the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) will jointly act as the eurozone LLR.

It's not an academic question. It's what we currently have. Between the national central banks and the different programmes put in place during the crisis, we have all the grounds for an already functionnal Lender of Last Resort, even if it is not a unique entity. That's why people say the ECB acted as a Lender of Last Resort in 2011 and 2012, and that's the conclusion of the economists which I quoted for you. Now they're only discussing if it should all be supervised by a single entity (like the ECB) to mimic the usual scheme. It's really not that hard to understand.

But you do not and that is the nub of the fight within the ECB. You may have the trappings of such but the Bundesbank denies its existence as they are legally required to under German basic Law. The test would be if there was a flight away from the Euro, but this is unlikely due to vested interests. The ECB is hamstrung, Draghi thwarted, he will go soon.

Sorry RJD, but you haven't brought anything of substance to back your claims up, while I did. So in the end, you're just ignoring inconvenient facts. The Bundesbank may deny the existence of the ECB as a unique Lender of Last Resort entity -because that's the case-, it still doesn't change the fact that all mechanisms in place put together act just as one.

In conclusion, I expect that you will stop waving that LLR concept as a fatal flaw for the Eurozone until you prove that the collective mechanisms put in place don't act as an effective Lender of Last Resort.

RJD

Dec 9 2014, 09:07 AM

Montjoie

Dec 8 2014, 02:43 PM

RJD

Dec 8 2014, 08:19 AM

Montjoie

Dec 7 2014, 11:54 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deephttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07036337.2014.913039


Quoting limited to 4 levels deepThe author begins by clarifying the definition of the LLR, and then analyses the possibility of the ECB or other institutions assuming the role of the LLR, taking into account the eurozone’s special economic governance model and legal framework. As the conclusion shows, with the introduction of Outright Monetary Transactions (OMTs), a debt-purchasing programme, the ECB and the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) will jointly act as the eurozone LLR.

But you do not and that is the nub of the fight within the ECB. You may have the trappings of such but the Bundesbank denies its existence as they are legally required to under German basic Law. The test would be if there was a flight away from the Euro, but this is unlikely due to vested interests. The ECB is hamstrung, Draghi thwarted, he will go soon.

Sorry RJD, but you haven't brought anything of substance to back your claims up, while I did. So in the end, you're just ignoring inconvenient facts. The Bundesbank may deny the existence of the ECB as a unique Lender of Last Resort entity -because that's the case-, it still doesn't change the fact that all mechanisms in place put together act just as one.

In conclusion, I expect that you will stop waving that LLR concept as a fatal flaw for the Eurozone until you prove that the collective mechanisms put in place don't act as an effective Lender of Last Resort.

I do not need to prove anything. The ECB is not the Lender of Last Resort and German Basic Law will not allow it to become such. In such a situation the system will do it's very best to accommodate that difficulty, it has. But the problem remains no matter how much you wish to ignore it.
I note that the French left are now beginning to recognise that the high cost of the Euro, for France, is a major hurdle and that no matter how much reform is swallowed then the French filly may still not be able to surmount the barrier.

Lewis

Dec 1 2014, 08:19 AM

Enough of this right wing Tory Propaganda and lies.

Time has come for a redistribution of wealth in this country and 56% wish that according to this poll:

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/11/27/voters-back-redistribution-wealth/

Montjoie

Dec 1 2014, 07:07 PM

RJD

Dec 1 2014, 04:48 PM

Curious Cdn

Dec 1 2014, 12:55 PM

I'll bet that the richest 10% mentioned in the first post also control about 80% of the wealth.

If they legally own such then why not? Serious question. We have seen what happens when the State decides to own such on our behalf.

So, if people legally immigrate to the UK, why not? And I guess you're against State regulation on this aspect too right? Right .... thought so.

Curious Cdn

Dec 2 2014, 03:13 AM

RJD

Dec 1 2014, 04:47 PM

ACH1967

Dec 1 2014, 04:17 PM

Affa

Dec 1 2014, 02:35 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepThings that do make a difference!

When you say invest what you actually mean is borrow isn't it? Borrow then invest then cross your fingers.

Improved wages! I agree. Especially for those on the lowest pay. Increase the NMW.

Lower the cost of living. Absolutely. Lets have some anti trust organisations that are actually say antitrust.

Borrowing at the cost of future generations to fuel current consumption is now what the left term as investment. Totally immoral.

A lot of them legally own most of your country because their ancestors were Norman thugs. That hardly makes them deserving of much.

C-too

Dec 9 2014, 10:58 AM

Curious Cdn

Dec 2 2014, 03:13 AM

RJD

Dec 1 2014, 04:47 PM

ACH1967

Dec 1 2014, 04:17 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepThings that do make a difference!

Borrowing at the cost of future generations to fuel current consumption is now what the left term as investment. Totally immoral.

A lot of them legally own most of your country because their ancestors were Norman thugs. That hardly makes them deserving of much.

Correct, but this information is lost on the defenders of wealth and privilege.

Tytoalba

Dec 9 2014, 11:20 AM

C-too

Dec 9 2014, 10:58 AM

Curious Cdn

Dec 2 2014, 03:13 AM

RJD

Dec 1 2014, 04:47 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepThings that do make a difference!

A lot of them legally own most of your country because their ancestors were Norman thugs. That hardly makes them deserving of much.

Correct, but this information is lost on the defenders of wealth and privilege.

Or those that see fairness to all as a matter of just simply a matter of being wealthy or poor.

noun 1.

the state, condition, or quality of being fair, or free from bias or injustice; even-handedness:

C-too

Dec 9 2014, 11:25 AM

Tytoalba

Dec 9 2014, 11:20 AM

C-too

Dec 9 2014, 10:58 AM

Curious Cdn

Dec 2 2014, 03:13 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepThings that do make a difference!

Correct, but this information is lost on the defenders of wealth and privilege.

Or those that see fairness to all as a matter of just simply a matter of being wealthy or poor.

noun 1.

the state, condition, or quality of being fair, or free from bias or injustice; even-handedness:

You apparently see fairness in society at one level I see it at a different level. You defend wealth, I defend those who are abused by the wealthy.

C-too

Dec 9 2014, 11:25 AM

Tytoalba

Dec 9 2014, 11:20 AM

C-too

Dec 9 2014, 10:58 AM

Curious Cdn

Dec 2 2014, 03:13 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepThings that do make a difference!

Correct, but this information is lost on the defenders of wealth and privilege.

Or those that see fairness to all as a matter of just simply a matter of being wealthy or poor.

noun 1.

the state, condition, or quality of being fair, or free from bias or injustice; even-handedness:

You apparently see fairness in society at one level I see it at a different level. You defend wealth, I defend those who are abused by the wealthy.

C-too

Dec 9 2014, 10:58 AM

Curious Cdn

Dec 2 2014, 03:13 AM

RJD

Dec 1 2014, 04:47 PM

ACH1967

Dec 1 2014, 04:17 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepThings that do make a difference!

Borrowing at the cost of future generations to fuel current consumption is now what the left term as investment. Totally immoral.

A lot of them legally own most of your country because their ancestors were Norman thugs. That hardly makes them deserving of much.

Correct, but this information is lost on the defenders of wealth and privilege.

Tytoalba

Dec 9 2014, 11:59 AM

C-too

Dec 9 2014, 11:25 AM

Tytoalba

Dec 9 2014, 11:20 AM

C-too

Dec 9 2014, 10:58 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepThings that do make a difference!

Or those that see fairness to all as a matter of just simply a matter of being wealthy or poor.

noun 1.

the state, condition, or quality of being fair, or free from bias or injustice; even-handedness:

You apparently see fairness in society at one level I see it at a different level. You defend wealth, I defend those who are abused by the wealthy.

I don't defend wealth, but the right to be wealthy if it is acquired through hard work, intelligence, enterprise and legal means or through inheritance.
Every person that buys a lottery ticket aspires to being wealthy, and it is a human condition to desire to be wealthy, even to hold power by doing so.
Its not the first instinct of winner to decide to give it to the poor, but to improve their own lot. It seems the first option is to buy a bigger house, a new car, and to enjoy an expensive holiday in the sun, and to look after their own.

RJD

Dec 9 2014, 02:44 PM

C-too

Dec 9 2014, 10:58 AM

Curious Cdn

Dec 2 2014, 03:13 AM

RJD

Dec 1 2014, 04:47 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepThings that do make a difference!

A lot of them legally own most of your country because their ancestors were Norman thugs. That hardly makes them deserving of much.

Correct, but this information is lost on the defenders of wealth and privilege.

But nobody is defending such only pointing out that your anger is not backed by practical solutions. You have still after two years, not been able to put up a plausible strategy to shift ~£20b PA from wealth created to the bottom quartile of wage earners. Piddling Mansion Taxes collecting ~£1b at best is already destined elsewhere. Increase the NMW by all means, but do not do so without first considering what this might do to jobs. Increase all the taxes you like, but you have to first understand whether such will stimulate the economy and in which direction. The left is all anger, but no solutions. We need to know how the left is going to increase the earnings per capita from real jobs? Bet you do not have any ideas.

ACH1967

Dec 9 2014, 11:44 AM

C-too

Dec 9 2014, 11:25 AM

Tytoalba

Dec 9 2014, 11:20 AM

C-too

Dec 9 2014, 10:58 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepThings that do make a difference!

Or those that see fairness to all as a matter of just simply a matter of being wealthy or poor.

noun 1.

the state, condition, or quality of being fair, or free from bias or injustice; even-handedness:

You apparently see fairness in society at one level I see it at a different level. You defend wealth, I defend those who are abused by the wealthy.

RJD does have a point when he says what is fairness. I happen to agree with you and am pretty appalled that in our society we have some extremely rich people and others struggling to eat/cope/acheive a modicum of happiness. That is not fair but to constantlyu accuse people who don't agree with you as defending wealth is tiresome and pointless.

If redistrubution had delivered us the better society we were led to believe than I am sure that there would be less oposition to it. There is clearly the perception that it has not. Accusing those with this perception of either defending the wealthy or being selfish does not move the debate forward.

C-too

Dec 9 2014, 07:26 PM

ACH1967

Dec 9 2014, 11:44 AM

C-too

Dec 9 2014, 11:25 AM

Tytoalba

Dec 9 2014, 11:20 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepThings that do make a difference!
bias or injustice; even-handedness:

You apparently see fairness in society at one level I see it at a different level. You defend wealth, I defend those who are abused by the wealthy.

RJD does have a point when he says what is fairness. I happen to agree with you and am pretty appalled that in our society we have some extremely rich people and others struggling to eat/cope/acheive a modicum of happiness. That is not fair but to constantlyu accuse people who don't agree with you as defending wealth is tiresome and pointless.

If redistrubution had delivered us the better society we were led to believe than I am sure that there would be less oposition to it. There is clearly the perception that it has not. Accusing those with this perception of either defending the wealthy or being selfish does not move the debate forward.

I tend to accuse people of defending wealth when they have repeatedly over time done exactly that. RJD is on that list, so is Tytoalba and Stan Still.

RJD

Dec 10 2014, 05:23 PM

Rubbish I have not defended wealth per se, I have, however, attacked spite and envy which I find corrosive to sensible political solutions.

RJD

Dec 10 2014, 05:23 PM

C-too

Dec 9 2014, 07:26 PM

ACH1967

Dec 9 2014, 11:44 AM

C-too

Dec 9 2014, 11:25 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepThings that do make a difference!
bias

RJD does have a point when he says what is fairness. I happen to agree with you and am pretty appalled that in our society we have some extremely rich people and others struggling to eat/cope/acheive a modicum of happiness. That is not fair but to constantlyu accuse people who don't agree with you as defending wealth is tiresome and pointless.

If redistrubution had delivered us the better society we were led to believe than I am sure that there would be less oposition to it. There is clearly the perception that it has not. Accusing those with this perception of either defending the wealthy or being selfish does not move the debate forward.

I tend to accuse people of defending wealth when they have repeatedly over time done exactly that. RJD is on that list, so is Tytoalba and Stan Still.

Rubbish I have not defended wealth per se, I have, however, attacked spite and envy which I find corrosive to sensible political solutions. I note that whilst you are big on the anger, claim to being top of the moral heap, fair, centre of the road and all that tosh, but we see no solutions to the World wide problem from you or the left in general. Just a constant whine. I have posed the question more than a dozen times, but the Usuals still have not bothered themselves to come up with sensible proposals of how to shift ~£20b PA from top to bottom in a sustainable manner and to the benefit of the wider economy. Where are these solutions from the left? We know what the right believes and that is a smaller State, lower taxes, definitely no taxes on jobs and via such an encouragement for Investors to invest in the UK to create real jobs. The left appears to want to pull in the opposite direction. Is Labour just for whiners or do they have economic strategies? I see none.

ACH1967

Dec 9 2014, 03:53 PM

RJD

Dec 9 2014, 02:44 PM

C-too

Dec 9 2014, 10:58 AM

Curious Cdn

Dec 2 2014, 03:13 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepThings that do make a difference!

Correct, but this information is lost on the defenders of wealth and privilege.

But nobody is defending such only pointing out that your anger is not backed by practical solutions. You have still after two years, not been able to put up a plausible strategy to shift ~£20b PA from wealth created to the bottom quartile of wage earners. Piddling Mansion Taxes collecting ~£1b at best is already destined elsewhere. Increase the NMW by all means, but do not do so without first considering what this might do to jobs. Increase all the taxes you like, but you have to first understand whether such will stimulate the economy and in which direction. The left is all anger, but no solutions. We need to know how the left is going to increase the earnings per capita from real jobs? Bet you do not have any ideas.

What do they do in switzerland?

Tigger

Dec 10 2014, 07:05 PM

Others who are still here can check this out for themselves it's all over the internet thingy, the report concludes that growing wealth inequality is actually bad for the overall economy and is in the longer term even self defeating for those at or near the top, ....

File under oh shit!

Affa

Dec 10 2014, 06:56 PM

RJD

Dec 10 2014, 05:23 PM

Rubbish I have not defended wealth per se, I have, however, attacked spite and envy which I find corrosive to sensible political solutions.

Another well scripted soundbite ...... that carries not one iota of merit.

The "corrosion" we have that is rotting away our whole economic standing is of course a result of wealth being globalised, ill used. I don't believe him for one second, but Osborne does make out he has being trying very hard to get banks to invest their (our) money in SMEs, and failed.
Tigger has it right when these lenders look elsewhere for their investment returns - I do not envy the wealthy I despise how their wealth is gained when it leaves its source barren.

Tigger

Dec 10 2014, 07:05 PM

RJD

Dec 10 2014, 05:23 PM

C-too

Dec 9 2014, 07:26 PM

ACH1967

Dec 9 2014, 11:44 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepThings that do make a difference!
bias

I tend to accuse people of defending wealth when they have repeatedly over time done exactly that. RJD is on that list, so is Tytoalba and Stan Still.

Rubbish I have not defended wealth per se, I have, however, attacked spite and envy which I find corrosive to sensible political solutions. I note that whilst you are big on the anger, claim to being top of the moral heap, fair, centre of the road and all that tosh, but we see no solutions to the World wide problem from you or the left in general. Just a constant whine. I have posed the question more than a dozen times, but the Usuals still have not bothered themselves to come up with sensible proposals of how to shift ~£20b PA from top to bottom in a sustainable manner and to the benefit of the wider economy. Where are these solutions from the left? We know what the right believes and that is a smaller State, lower taxes, definitely no taxes on jobs and via such an encouragement for Investors to invest in the UK to create real jobs. The left appears to want to pull in the opposite direction. Is Labour just for whiners or do they have economic strategies? I see none.

Did you see the latest report from the OECD? Ignore this now because you are not going to like it.

Others who are still here can check this out for themselves it's all over the internet thingy, the report concludes that growing wealth inequality is actually bad for the overall economy and is in the longer term even self defeating for those at or near the top, not only this it also claims the results are now measurable, and sit down for this last bit, the act of transferring money and opportunities to those further down the scale through government intervention does little harm to wealth creators but boosts the economic prospects for just about everyone, Norway, Holland and Denmark are mentioned.

File under oh shit!