|
Replies:
|
|
Ewill
|
Aug 23 2015, 09:07 AM
Post #961
|
- Posts:
- 4,381
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #62
- Joined:
- Jul 27, 2014
|
- johnofgwent
- Aug 23 2015, 07:45 AM
- Ewill
- Aug 21 2015, 03:45 PM
- marybrown
- Aug 21 2015, 03:09 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Trussell is the franchisor and a charity , they have paid staff vacancies are advertised on their website-last time I looked they were advertising for f/t van drivers at £8.20 an hour and full and p/t retail staff for their charity shops - think I've read that senior management is on £40k a year (need to check that ) I doubt most volunteers would realise that they can be dealing with paid staff, I know someone who is an area manager for a household name charity, salary £38k-they liaise between HQ and volunteer groups in West London - I have asked if the volunteer groups know that she is salaried and was told that being employed was an irrelevance to the relationship
I rather doubt the volunteers are unaware that some of the staff are paid. I would point to barnardos as a case in point. Every one of their charity shops has a manager and one or more additional supervisors who are paid, albeit at the supervisor level the rate of pay is the NMW and the Manager little more than that. I know this to be so because my youngest worked in that capacity on a part time basis throughout most of her second and half of her final undergraduate year, a job that has provided PRICELESS experience in retail management and keyholding and the downsides such reponsibilities bring, INCLUDING the 3am wakeup calls from the police needing to verify the building is secure after the break in attempt at the adjacent shop, or the bang on the house front door from the fire investigations officer (admittedly a neighbour who lives a few doors away) who has himself been hauled out of bed to attend the electrical fire in the adjacent property on the other side, and needs jennifer to come with him and let him into their shop to verify the electrical supply there is safe and the fire has not penetrated ... Now while such things are hardly the make and break of most office workers, to anyone intending as jennifer does to set up her own retail service sector business operated from a shopfront, getting this on your CV now before it's your store and your stock is absolutely priceless ... The pay structure for charities is apparently allied to that of local authority salary levels, thanks for all levels
I agree that volunteering for charities or pro bono work of all types is a very useful USP for CVs.
Edited by Ewill, Aug 23 2015, 10:52 AM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Ewill
|
Aug 23 2015, 10:58 AM
Post #962
|
- Posts:
- 4,381
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #62
- Joined:
- Jul 27, 2014
|
<<Why the indignation? It has been custom and practice for the Directors of major UK Charities to pay themselves PM level salaries our of donations for decades. I see no harm in such a Charity using donations to pay for the professional services of staff if they cannot find sufficient resources that will do the same free of charges. Surely their objectives must be satisfied in some manner?>>
Not just directors , staff at all levels both f/t and p/t and fulfilling all roles including basic office functions and fundraising. If paid directors/staff are needed in these roles they should pay minimum wage imo
I can quite understand that ''care'' charities need to employ trained paid carers and have no issue with this
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Aug 23 2015, 11:16 AM
Post #963
|
- Posts:
- 33,941
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Pro Veritas
- Aug 22 2015, 10:36 PM
- Steve K
- Aug 22 2015, 10:40 AM
Even a brief dabble in Google would have reminded her (and informed you) just why Joan Twelves and Jason Cobb are not allowed to vote. They have both actively campaigned against the Labour party. End of right to vote in Labour party matters, ever. Seemples.
Well surely campaigning against your party when it does things you oppose is EXACTLY how the parliamentary party system is supposed to work. If not how is change in policy ever going to come about? All The Best Possibly a separate debate in itself but surely the whole ethos of a political party is to have their internal debates and then act united for their common causes and to oppose their common opponents
Being a dilettante 'one day I'll be Labour, tomorrow I won't and the day after maybe' is absolutely fatal to that.
If such were to openly and pubclicly apply to rejoin would be one thing but to quietly try and creep in to cast a leadership vote is wrong whatever party.
|
|
|
| |
|
Pro Veritas
|
Aug 23 2015, 11:31 AM
Post #964
|
- Posts:
- 7,014
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #19
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Aug 23 2015, 11:16 AM
- Pro Veritas
- Aug 22 2015, 10:36 PM
- Steve K
- Aug 22 2015, 10:40 AM
Even a brief dabble in Google would have reminded her (and informed you) just why Joan Twelves and Jason Cobb are not allowed to vote. They have both actively campaigned against the Labour party. End of right to vote in Labour party matters, ever. Seemples.
Well surely campaigning against your party when it does things you oppose is EXACTLY how the parliamentary party system is supposed to work. If not how is change in policy ever going to come about? All The Best
Possibly a separate debate in itself but surely the whole ethos of a political party is to have their internal debates and then act united for their common causes and to oppose their common opponents Being a dilettante 'one day I'll be Labour, tomorrow I won't and the day after maybe' is absolutely fatal to that. If such were to openly and pubclicly apply to rejoin would be one thing but to quietly try and creep in to cast a leadership vote is wrong whatever party. This makes the erroneous assumption that the "opponents" of - for example - Labour are the Tories.
This is wrong.
The real opponents of Labour are social injustice, increasing inequality, rising poverty.
I really couldn't give a damn how Labour respond to the Tories, or the Tories respond to Labour, or any other party combination you can think of.
What I care about is how those parties respond to the issues that are important to the people of this country.
I suggest the people of this country don't give a damn if Labour are projecting a united front against the Tories. They care what Labour are doing to address the issues I mention above.
I don't think some of the people ejected from the Labour party leadership ballot are political "dilettantes" at all. I think they are people who lost faith with Labour when Labour abandoned its core principles in favour "political expediency" and who decided to return to Labour when there was a Leadership Candidate who had promised to return Labour to those core principles which had attracted that support in the first place.
Have you ever read a more genuine Labour columnist than Mark Steel? I disagree with him on many points, but to suggest he is somehow anti-Labour (as Labour has done in rejecting his right to cast a ballot) is quite laughable, and smacks of unthinking McCarthyist paranoia.
As long as they rejoined using the current appropriate method of doing so they have, IMO, done nothing wrong.
Given the Pro-Blairite-McCarthyesque "political cleansing" that is happening right now, as we speak, I think they were wise to do without openly and publicly announcing it.
How anyone can defend what is happening right now with people being denied a vote is quite beyond me.
All The Best
|
|
|
| |
|
Cymru
|
Aug 23 2015, 02:44 PM
Post #965
|
- Posts:
- 3,504
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #3
- Joined:
- Jun 26, 2014
|
- C-too
- Aug 23 2015, 08:43 AM
- Cymru
- Aug 22 2015, 05:31 PM
- C-too
- Aug 22 2015, 06:57 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deeppredictedcauses a crash". ----
Yep a lack of regulation of the financial markets in the US caused the crash. Labour's lack of regulation in Britain meant that when the contagion spread here we were powerless to stop it.
You are stooping low with that attempted, out of context, get out. Brown/NL had no influence on American regulations. Wriggle all you want, but you know that no chancellors in the West was prepared, or regulated in such a way to avoid that meltdown. The only one wriggling here is you.
I did not say Brown had influence on the American regulations, he did however, have influence on British regulations and could, if he so desired, have prevented the purchasing of American mortgage-backed securities and collateralised debt obligations to limit contagion.
The fact that others didn't do so is a poor excuse for Brown's inaction as it shows that Brown was more interested in appearing to be on page with his peers rather than protecting the British economy.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Aug 23 2015, 11:55 PM
Post #966
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- Cymru
- Aug 23 2015, 02:44 PM
- C-too
- Aug 23 2015, 08:43 AM
- Cymru
- Aug 22 2015, 05:31 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deeppredictedcauses
You are stooping low with that attempted, out of context, get out. Brown/NL had no influence on American regulations. Wriggle all you want, but you know that no chancellors in the West was prepared, or regulated in such a way to avoid that meltdown.
The only one wriggling here is you. I did not say Brown had influence on the American regulations, he did however, have influence on British regulations and could, if he so desired, have prevented the purchasing of American mortgage-backed securities and collateralised debt obligations to limit contagion. The fact that others didn't do so is a poor excuse for Brown's inaction as it shows that Brown was more interested in appearing to be on page with his peers rather than protecting the British economy. You really stooping to the lowest levels.
My post, and your reply. post 1062 on page 27;
--- Ctoo. "Taking 1.6 million out of relative poverty is not protecting the poor and the vulnerable" ?
--- Cymru. "Not when you preside over a lack of regulation over the financial markets which causes a crash that results in much more than 1.6 million going back into poverty.
The point being debated was NLs record, no mention of American regulations or of American Toxic Debts causing the meltdown. The UK did not "preside" over American regulations or over American Toxic Debts.
American mortgage-backed securities, IF such were ever purchased, were not the problem. The problem was the Toxic debts produced by the abuse of sub-prime mortgages. These debts were hidden in bundles and slipped into the international financial markets via Wall Street. The packages had a three star rating. By the time it was understood what had happened it was too late to do anything about it. That is why so many countries came unstuck at the same time.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Aug 24 2015, 12:05 AM
Post #967
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- Rich
- Aug 22 2015, 07:28 PM
- C-too
- Aug 22 2015, 05:41 AM
- Cymru
- Aug 21 2015, 09:00 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deeppredicted
From your initial post. ---- "Not when you preside over a lack of regulation over the financial markets which causes a crash that results in much more than 1.6 million going back into poverty". ---- __________________ To my knowledge any regulation, if any existed on the INTERNATIONAL financial markets, were kicked into touch when the American produced Toxic Debts were slipped into the system via Wall Street. A problem for many countries, many of whom might claim to have had tighter regulations than the UK. The crash was very clearly NOT caused by UK Banking regulations.
ENOUGH.....Please show me any post on this forum concerning the global meltdown/financial crash that blames the British government. Try post 1062 on page 27 on this thread.
Or see my post above.
Edited by C-too, Aug 24 2015, 12:06 AM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Cymru
|
Aug 24 2015, 03:17 AM
Post #968
|
- Posts:
- 3,504
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #3
- Joined:
- Jun 26, 2014
|
- C-too
- Aug 23 2015, 11:55 PM
- Cymru
- Aug 23 2015, 02:44 PM
- C-too
- Aug 23 2015, 08:43 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deeppredictedcauses
The only one wriggling here is you. I did not say Brown had influence on the American regulations, he did however, have influence on British regulations and could, if he so desired, have prevented the purchasing of American mortgage-backed securities and collateralised debt obligations to limit contagion. The fact that others didn't do so is a poor excuse for Brown's inaction as it shows that Brown was more interested in appearing to be on page with his peers rather than protecting the British economy.
You really stooping to the lowest levels. My post, and your reply. post 1062 on page 27; --- Ctoo. "Taking 1.6 million out of relative poverty is not protecting the poor and the vulnerable" ? --- Cymru. " Not when you preside over a lack of regulation over the financial markets which causes a crash that results in much more than 1.6 million going back into poverty. The point being debated was NLs record, no mention of American regulations or of American Toxic Debts causing the meltdown. The UK did not "preside" over American regulations or over American Toxic Debts. American mortgage-backed securities, IF such were ever purchased, were not the problem. The problem was the Toxic debts produced by the abuse of sub-prime mortgages. These debts were hidden in bundles and slipped into the international financial markets via Wall Street. The packages had a three star rating. By the time it was understood what had happened it was too late to do anything about it. That is why so many countries came unstuck at the same time. But lack of regulation over our own markets did cause our crash.
We could have been spared the contagion from America that helped trigger are own crash by regulating our own markets to protect against investment in dodgy American securities.
And it was known long before things got out of control that these dodgy securities were being packaged to foreign investors as sound.
Edited by Cymru, Aug 24 2015, 03:20 AM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Heinrich
|
Aug 24 2015, 04:16 AM
Post #969
|
- Posts:
- 2,920
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #51
- Joined:
- Jul 22, 2014
|
- Cymru
- Aug 24 2015, 03:17 AM
- C-too
- Aug 23 2015, 11:55 PM
- Cymru
- Aug 23 2015, 02:44 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deeppredictedcauses
You really stooping to the lowest levels. My post, and your reply. post 1062 on page 27; --- Ctoo. "Taking 1.6 million out of relative poverty is not protecting the poor and the vulnerable" ? --- Cymru. " Not when you preside over a lack of regulation over the financial markets which causes a crash that results in much more than 1.6 million going back into poverty. The point being debated was NLs record, no mention of American regulations or of American Toxic Debts causing the meltdown. The UK did not "preside" over American regulations or over American Toxic Debts. American mortgage-backed securities, IF such were ever purchased, were not the problem. The problem was the Toxic debts produced by the abuse of sub-prime mortgages. These debts were hidden in bundles and slipped into the international financial markets via Wall Street. The packages had a three star rating. By the time it was understood what had happened it was too late to do anything about it. That is why so many countries came unstuck at the same time.
But lack of regulation over our own markets did cause our crash. We could have been spared the contagion from America that helped trigger are own crash by regulating our own markets to protect against investment in dodgy American securities. And it was known long before things got out of control that these dodgy securities were being packaged to foreign investors as sound. The London Government learned nothing from the crash which was indeed caused by the actions of casino bankers. The Tories, by conviction, deplore the regulation of their friends in the financial services scam that passes for an industry. Allowing the banksters to gamble with other people's money, reap bogus profits for their CEO's and paper money merchants and then nationalizing their debts when their scams in derivatives were exposed, saddling ordinary citizens with colossal debt was all obscene. Then, after a change of government, there has not been a month since when the City of London banks and financial outfits have not been out of the headlines for shady deals. These crooks continue to get stratospheric bonuses, knighthoods, and lordships. The Bank of UK England could not find an Englishman to run its affairs after all this and a Canadian is put in charge. New Labour and the Conservative Worker's Party are chock-a-bloc with dullards. But what gets me is that they have the confidence of the English voters.
Edited by Heinrich, Aug 24 2015, 04:18 AM.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Aug 24 2015, 06:56 AM
Post #970
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- Cymru
- Aug 24 2015, 03:17 AM
- C-too
- Aug 23 2015, 11:55 PM
- Cymru
- Aug 23 2015, 02:44 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deeppredictedcauses
You really stooping to the lowest levels. My post, and your reply. post 1062 on page 27; --- Ctoo. "Taking 1.6 million out of relative poverty is not protecting the poor and the vulnerable" ? --- Cymru. " Not when you preside over a lack of regulation over the financial markets which causes a crash that results in much more than 1.6 million going back into poverty. The point being debated was NLs record, no mention of American regulations or of American Toxic Debts causing the meltdown. The UK did not "preside" over American regulations or over American Toxic Debts. American mortgage-backed securities, IF such were ever purchased, were not the problem. The problem was the Toxic debts produced by the abuse of sub-prime mortgages. These debts were hidden in bundles and slipped into the international financial markets via Wall Street. The packages had a three star rating. By the time it was understood what had happened it was too late to do anything about it. That is why so many countries came unstuck at the same time.
But lack of regulation over our own markets did cause our crash. We could have been spared the contagion from America that helped trigger are own crash by regulating our own markets to protect against investment in dodgy American securities. And it was known long before things got out of control that these dodgy securities were being packaged to foreign investors as sound. 1. No one would invest in (I think you mean trade in) "dodgy American securities" if they knew them to be dodgy. The parcels involved in the international financial markets that contained the toxic debts and did the damage, had AAA ratings. i.e. No one knew they were dodgy. 2. No one has showed what possible problems would have been caused by a so called UK created crash if there had not been the problem of the international financial meltdown. You could start by reading the information I posted in post 1024 on page 26. 3. The crash was caused by the US Toxic Debts, as already explained. 4. The idea that all countries involved in buying these parcels knew they contained toxic debts that had been slipped into the international financial markets, is laughable nonsense.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Aug 24 2015, 07:41 AM
Post #971
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Heinrich
- Aug 24 2015, 04:16 AM
- Cymru
- Aug 24 2015, 03:17 AM
- C-too
- Aug 23 2015, 11:55 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deeppredictedcausesNot when you preside over a lack of regulation over the financial markets which causes a crash that results in much more than 1.6 million going back into poverty.
The point being debated was NLs record, no mention of American regulations or of American Toxic Debts causing the meltdown. The UK did not "preside" over American regulations or over American Toxic Debts.
American mortgage-backed securities, IF such were ever purchased, were not the problem. The problem was the Toxic debts produced by the abuse of sub-prime mortgages. These debts were hidden in bundles and slipped into the international financial markets via Wall Street. The packages had a three star rating. By the time it was understood what had happened it was too late to do anything about it. That is why so many countries came unstuck at the same time.
But lack of regulation over our own markets did cause our crash. We could have been spared the contagion from America that helped trigger are own crash by regulating our own markets to protect against investment in dodgy American securities. And it was known long before things got out of control that these dodgy securities were being packaged to foreign investors as sound.
The London Government learned nothing from the crash which was indeed caused by the actions of casino bankers. The Tories, by conviction, deplore the regulation of their friends in the financial services scam that passes for an industry. Allowing the banksters to gamble with other people's money, reap bogus profits for their CEO's and paper money merchants and then nationalizing their debts when their scams in derivatives were exposed, saddling ordinary citizens with colossal debt was all obscene. Then, after a change of government, there has not been a month since when the City of London banks and financial outfits have not been out of the headlines for shady deals. These crooks continue to get stratospheric bonuses, knighthoods, and lordships. The Bank of UK England could not find an Englishman to run its affairs after all this and a Canadian is put in charge. New Labour and the Conservative Worker's Party are chock-a-bloc with dullards. But what gets me is that they have the confidence of the English voters. You clearly are totally ignorant of the reforms already established in the UK Banking sector and have absolutely no idea of the decline in bonuses provided/earned by those at the top of this industry. Your rant is one of pure ignorance. Labour was the friend to this sector not the current Gov.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Aug 24 2015, 07:52 AM
Post #972
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- C-too
- Aug 24 2015, 06:56 AM
- Cymru
- Aug 24 2015, 03:17 AM
- C-too
- Aug 23 2015, 11:55 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deeppredictedcausesNot when you preside over a lack of regulation over the financial markets which causes a crash that results in much more than 1.6 million going back into poverty.
The point being debated was NLs record, no mention of American regulations or of American Toxic Debts causing the meltdown. The UK did not "preside" over American regulations or over American Toxic Debts.
American mortgage-backed securities, IF such were ever purchased, were not the problem. The problem was the Toxic debts produced by the abuse of sub-prime mortgages. These debts were hidden in bundles and slipped into the international financial markets via Wall Street. The packages had a three star rating. By the time it was understood what had happened it was too late to do anything about it. That is why so many countries came unstuck at the same time.
But lack of regulation over our own markets did cause our crash. We could have been spared the contagion from America that helped trigger are own crash by regulating our own markets to protect against investment in dodgy American securities. And it was known long before things got out of control that these dodgy securities were being packaged to foreign investors as sound.
1.  No one would invest in (I think you mean trade in) "dodgy American securities" if they knew them to be dodgy. The parcels involved in the international financial markets that contained the toxic debts and did the damage, had AAA ratings. i.e. No one knew they were dodgy. 2. No one has showed what possible problems would have been caused by a so called UK created crash if there had not been the problem of the international financial meltdown. You could start by reading the information I posted in post 1024 on page 26. 3. The crash was caused by the US Toxic Debts, as already explained. 4. The idea that all countries involved in buying these parcels knew they contained toxic debts that had been slipped into the international financial markets, is laughable nonsense. Pure Strawman. NL provided the environment of cheap money and lax controls over risks. It instituted a change in the way this sector was to be regulated and told it to use a light touch. NL pumped up the cost of the Public Sector, yes "running costs" not to be confused with the monstrous PFI splurge, which when the down turn in receipts came about were no longer affordable. NL from 2002 funded it's growth in Public Spending ahead of Tax Receipts by borrowing. Yes borrowing to feed current consumption a taboo according to one Gordon Brown. The only person you deceive C2 is yourself and on this matter in this forum you regularly make a fool of yourself. Yes the UK would not, even if it had been extremely prudent with Public Spending, have avoided damage to the economy, but we would have made the Osborne-Brown legacy of National Debt so much more palatable.
The charge against Brown is that he pumped up Public Spending to levels well beyond that affordable from Receipts and that in return we received little that was a commensurate benefit. The charge against Brown is that he allowed Balls to foist on us a new system of regulation that was untried, untested and when needed was found wanting. Stick to these genuine charges and stop hiding behind Strawmen.
|
|
|
| |
|
Heinrich
|
Aug 24 2015, 08:22 AM
Post #973
|
- Posts:
- 2,920
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #51
- Joined:
- Jul 22, 2014
|
- RJD
- Aug 24 2015, 07:41 AM
- Heinrich
- Aug 24 2015, 04:16 AM
- Cymru
- Aug 24 2015, 03:17 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deeppredictedcausesNot when you preside over a lack of regulation over the financial markets which causes a crash
The London Government learned nothing from the crash which was indeed caused by the actions of casino bankers. The Tories, by conviction, deplore the regulation of their friends in the financial services scam that passes for an industry. Allowing the banksters to gamble with other people's money, reap bogus profits for their CEO's and paper money merchants and then nationalizing their debts when their scams in derivatives were exposed, saddling ordinary citizens with colossal debt was all obscene. Then, after a change of government, there has not been a month since when the City of London banks and financial outfits have not been out of the headlines for shady deals. These crooks continue to get stratospheric bonuses, knighthoods, and lordships. The Bank of UK England could not find an Englishman to run its affairs after all this and a Canadian is put in charge. New Labour and the Conservative Worker's Party are chock-a-bloc with dullards. But what gets me is that they have the confidence of the English voters.
You clearly are totally ignorant of the reforms already established in the UK Banking sector and have absolutely no idea of the decline in bonuses provided/earned by those at the top of this industry. Your rant is one of pure ignorance. Labour was the friend to this sector not the current Gov. Let's see: HSBC helping companies evade taxes.
Banks were fined in the region of £14.5bn for their part in the Libor fixing scandal. In 2012, British banks were accused of inflating and deflating Libor to encourage a profit from trades.
Since the 1990s, millions of customers were mis-sold insurance policies to pay off loans or mortgages if they died, became ill or lost their job. As of January 2015, the financial ombudsman dealt with 1.25m complaints - not including complaints made directly to banks and credit card companies.
In 2012, British bank Standard Chartered agreed to pay a $340m fine with the New York state department of financial services (DFS) after being accused of hiding $250bn of transactions with Iran.
Barclays, RBS, HSBC and Lloyds were forced to compensate thousands of small businesses who were mis-sold complex insurance deals. In 2013, the Financial Standards Authority said that it found 90 per cent of cases it examined did not comply with regulatory requirements.
In 2014, US and UK regulators imposed a £2.6bn fine on five banks for conspiring to manipulate foreign exchange rates. Investigators found there was a "free for all culture" rife on the trading floors of RBS, HSBC, Citibank, JP Morgan and UBS. HSBC was fined £216m, the biggest fine of all British banks.
You seem not to read the newspapers, RJD.
|
|
|
| |
|
Cymru
|
Aug 24 2015, 08:38 AM
Post #974
|
- Posts:
- 3,504
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #3
- Joined:
- Jun 26, 2014
|
- C-too
- Aug 24 2015, 06:56 AM
1.  No one would invest in (I think you mean trade in) "dodgy American securities" if they knew them to be dodgy. The parcels involved in the international financial markets that contained the toxic debts and did the damage, had AAA ratings. i.e. No one knew they were dodgy. Of course they would!
It was trade off between risk and reward, and so long as the market was good the reward for trading in these dodgy securities was worth the risk.
- Quote:
-
2. No one has showed what possible problems would have been caused by a so called UK created crash if there had not been the problem of the international financial meltdown. You could start by reading the information I posted in post 1024 on page 26.
No one to my knowledge has spoken of a UK crash existing in lieu of an international one. The point being made was that by not regulating our own financial sector we were left completely exposed to the contagion spreading from America.
- Quote:
-
3. The crash was caused by the US Toxic Debts, as already explained.
If our financial sector was regulated it could have been insulated from the worst of the American contagion.
- Quote:
-
4. The idea that all countries involved in buying these parcels knew they contained toxic debts that had been slipped into the international financial markets, is laughable nonsense.
No it was standard practice.
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Aug 24 2015, 08:47 AM
Post #975
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
It should be clear to everyone that the Bankers were behaving irresponsibly and breaking the rules, ignoring regulations, and often being criminal - so how does it matter whether the rules were tightened or not? The reality is that it would not have mattered. It took a crisis, a loss of liquidity, to make them behave in a more responsible way. What we had prior to the Big Bang liberation was integrity, Bankers doing what they are supposed to do legitimately. Since, they have been corrupted, made cavalier, and unfortunately, too big to fail.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Aug 24 2015, 10:14 AM
Post #976
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
H: Let's see: HSBC helping companies evade taxes.
When? On whose watch?
H: Banks were fined in the region of £14.5bn for their part in the Libor fixing scandal. In 2012, British banks were accused of inflating and deflating Libor to encourage a profit from trades.
When? On whose watch?
H: Since the 1990s, millions of customers were mis-sold insurance policies to pay off loans or mortgages if they died, became ill or lost their job. As of January 2015, the financial ombudsman dealt with 1.25m complaints - not including complaints made directly to banks and credit card companies.
Same.
H: In 2012, British bank Standard Chartered agreed to pay a $340m fine with the New York state department of financial services (DFS) after being accused of hiding $250bn of transactions with Iran.
Same.
H: Barclays, RBS, HSBC and Lloyds were forced to compensate thousands of small businesses who were mis-sold complex insurance deals. In 2013, the Financial Standards Authority said that it found 90 per cent of cases it examined did not comply with regulatory requirements.
Same
In 2014, US and UK regulators imposed a £2.6bn fine on five banks for conspiring to manipulate foreign exchange rates. Investigators found there was a "free for all culture" rife on the trading floors of RBS, HSBC, Citibank, JP Morgan and UBS. HSBC was fined £216m, the biggest fine of all British banks.
Same
H: You seem not to read the newspapers, RJD.
You seem incapable of justifying your claims H. Stick to your claims and then tell us about the subsequent to 2010 reforms to the Banking Sector. Tell us about the decline in bonuses received/earned and the increases in revenues extracted by one George Osborne. Tell us about the reforms that have brought about stronger balance sheets and a lower risk that this sector will, once again, play fast and loose on the roulette wheel as it did under NL. Tell us how it is that it takes a Tory Gov. to enact Laws that can/will put rogues into HM Prisons. H you are just full of emotional one-sided, nay Partisan, worthy of the Red Nag Myth Machine and very ignorant. If you want to debate this subject then learn to substantiate your emotional outbursts.
|
|
|
| |
|
Heinrich
|
Aug 24 2015, 10:44 AM
Post #977
|
- Posts:
- 2,920
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #51
- Joined:
- Jul 22, 2014
|
- RJD
- Aug 24 2015, 10:14 AM
H: Let's see: HSBC helping companies evade taxes.
When? On whose watch?
H: Banks were fined in the region of £14.5bn for their part in the Libor fixing scandal. In 2012, British banks were accused of inflating and deflating Libor to encourage a profit from trades.
When? On whose watch?
H: Since the 1990s, millions of customers were mis-sold insurance policies to pay off loans or mortgages if they died, became ill or lost their job. As of January 2015, the financial ombudsman dealt with 1.25m complaints - not including complaints made directly to banks and credit card companies.
Same.
H: In 2012, British bank Standard Chartered agreed to pay a $340m fine with the New York state department of financial services (DFS) after being accused of hiding $250bn of transactions with Iran.
Same.
H: Barclays, RBS, HSBC and Lloyds were forced to compensate thousands of small businesses who were mis-sold complex insurance deals. In 2013, the Financial Standards Authority said that it found 90 per cent of cases it examined did not comply with regulatory requirements.
Same
In 2014, US and UK regulators imposed a £2.6bn fine on five banks for conspiring to manipulate foreign exchange rates. Investigators found there was a "free for all culture" rife on the trading floors of RBS, HSBC, Citibank, JP Morgan and UBS. HSBC was fined £216m, the biggest fine of all British banks.
Same
H: You seem not to read the newspapers, RJD.
You seem incapable of justifying your claims H. Stick to your claims and then tell us about the subsequent to 2010 reforms to the Banking Sector. Tell us about the decline in bonuses received/earned and the increases in revenues extracted by one George Osborne. Tell us about the reforms that have brought about stronger balance sheets and a lower risk that this sector will, once again, play fast and loose on the roulette wheel as it did under NL. Tell us how it is that it takes a Tory Gov. to enact Laws that can/will put rogues into HM Prisons. H you are just full of emotional one-sided, nay Partisan, worthy of the Red Nag Myth Machine and very ignorant. If you want to debate this subject then learn to substantiate your emotional outbursts.
I provided dates. You know who was in power then.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Aug 24 2015, 11:26 AM
Post #978
|
- Posts:
- 33,941
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Pro Veritas
- Aug 23 2015, 11:31 AM
- Steve K
- Aug 23 2015, 11:16 AM
- Pro Veritas
- Aug 22 2015, 10:36 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Possibly a separate debate in itself but surely the whole ethos of a political party is to have their internal debates and then act united for their common causes and to oppose their common opponents Being a dilettante 'one day I'll be Labour, tomorrow I won't and the day after maybe' is absolutely fatal to that. If such were to openly and pubclicly apply to rejoin would be one thing but to quietly try and creep in to cast a leadership vote is wrong whatever party.
This makes the erroneous assumption that the "opponents" of - for example - Labour are the Tories. . . No it does not. I can't even remotely see how anyone could draw that inference with our plurality of parties. I can see why someone might want to say such but that doesn't make it true.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Aug 24 2015, 11:34 AM
Post #979
|
- Posts:
- 33,941
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Affa
- Aug 24 2015, 08:47 AM
It should be clear to everyone that the Bankers were behaving irresponsibly and breaking the rules, ignoring regulations, and often being criminal - so how does it matter whether the rules were tightened or not? The reality is that it would not have mattered. It took a crisis, a loss of liquidity, to make them behave in a more responsible way. What we had prior to the Big Bang liberation was integrity, Bankers doing what they are supposed to do legitimately. Since, they have been corrupted, made cavalier, and unfortunately, too big to fail.
"the Bankers" that's a very broad brush accusation. Please justify that they all were in the wrong
"were behaving irresponsibly and breaking the rules, ignoring regulations, and often being criminal" That's a very severe allegation. Please justify
More like it was the government and BoE tearing up the regulations and encouraging irresponsibility
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Aug 24 2015, 11:40 AM
Post #980
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Heinrich
- Aug 24 2015, 10:44 AM
- RJD
- Aug 24 2015, 10:14 AM
H: Let's see: HSBC helping companies evade taxes.
When? On whose watch?
H: Banks were fined in the region of £14.5bn for their part in the Libor fixing scandal. In 2012, British banks were accused of inflating and deflating Libor to encourage a profit from trades.
When? On whose watch?
H: Since the 1990s, millions of customers were mis-sold insurance policies to pay off loans or mortgages if they died, became ill or lost their job. As of January 2015, the financial ombudsman dealt with 1.25m complaints - not including complaints made directly to banks and credit card companies.
Same.
H: In 2012, British bank Standard Chartered agreed to pay a $340m fine with the New York state department of financial services (DFS) after being accused of hiding $250bn of transactions with Iran.
Same.
H: Barclays, RBS, HSBC and Lloyds were forced to compensate thousands of small businesses who were mis-sold complex insurance deals. In 2013, the Financial Standards Authority said that it found 90 per cent of cases it examined did not comply with regulatory requirements.
Same
In 2014, US and UK regulators imposed a £2.6bn fine on five banks for conspiring to manipulate foreign exchange rates. Investigators found there was a "free for all culture" rife on the trading floors of RBS, HSBC, Citibank, JP Morgan and UBS. HSBC was fined £216m, the biggest fine of all British banks.
Same
H: You seem not to read the newspapers, RJD.
You seem incapable of justifying your claims H. Stick to your claims and then tell us about the subsequent to 2010 reforms to the Banking Sector. Tell us about the decline in bonuses received/earned and the increases in revenues extracted by one George Osborne. Tell us about the reforms that have brought about stronger balance sheets and a lower risk that this sector will, once again, play fast and loose on the roulette wheel as it did under NL. Tell us how it is that it takes a Tory Gov. to enact Laws that can/will put rogues into HM Prisons. H you are just full of emotional one-sided, nay Partisan, worthy of the Red Nag Myth Machine and very ignorant. If you want to debate this subject then learn to substantiate your emotional outbursts.
I provided dates. You know who was in power then. I see no dates in your text. I see no answers to my questions. Finally when are EZ Banks going to adopt the reforms already established in the UK? And when will they carry out an integrated stress test to determine whether or not and to what extent they can absorb another financial shock? You criticise UK Banks but you fail to compare with those in the EZ. Why? Maybe your emotional dislike of England is showing through your threadbare reasoning.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Aug 24 2015, 11:46 AM
Post #981
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Aug 24 2015, 11:34 AM
- Affa
- Aug 24 2015, 08:47 AM
It should be clear to everyone that the Bankers were behaving irresponsibly and breaking the rules, ignoring regulations, and often being criminal - so how does it matter whether the rules were tightened or not? The reality is that it would not have mattered. It took a crisis, a loss of liquidity, to make them behave in a more responsible way. What we had prior to the Big Bang liberation was integrity, Bankers doing what they are supposed to do legitimately. Since, they have been corrupted, made cavalier, and unfortunately, too big to fail.
"the Bankers" that's a very broad brush accusation. Please justify that they all were in the wrong "were behaving irresponsibly and breaking the rules, ignoring regulations, and often being criminal" That's a very severe allegation. Please justify More like it was the government and BoE tearing up the regulations and encouraging irresponsibility Clearly many of our leading Bankers were flying very close to the wind, but it also clear that they were doing so with Gov. appro. Remember Fred the Shred? didn't Gordon Brown make sure he was gonged? Which merger/take-over was Gordon Brown insistent upon?
A responsible Gov. would not, on a whim, without a full a detailed analysis and peer reviewed programme, tear up the system of regulation and replace this with an untested tripartite system, which when required fell far short of coping with the task in hand. A responsible Gov. would look at "risks" as well as "rewards", however, Brown was obsessed with spending and needed every £Sterling he could get his mits on to pump up the Public Sector and had no time in considering risks, he had cured "boom and bust" so he considered himself omnipotent.
|
|
|
| |
|
Heinrich
|
Aug 24 2015, 11:47 AM
Post #982
|
- Posts:
- 2,920
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #51
- Joined:
- Jul 22, 2014
|
- RJD
- Aug 24 2015, 11:40 AM
- Heinrich
- Aug 24 2015, 10:44 AM
- RJD
- Aug 24 2015, 10:14 AM
H: Let's see: HSBC helping companies evade taxes.
When? On whose watch?
H: Banks were fined in the region of £14.5bn for their part in the Libor fixing scandal. In 2012, British banks were accused of inflating and deflating Libor to encourage a profit from trades.
When? On whose watch?
H: Since the 1990s, millions of customers were mis-sold insurance policies to pay off loans or mortgages if they died, became ill or lost their job. As of January 2015, the financial ombudsman dealt with 1.25m complaints - not including complaints made directly to banks and credit card companies.
Same.
H: In 2012, British bank Standard Chartered agreed to pay a $340m fine with the New York state department of financial services (DFS) after being accused of hiding $250bn of transactions with Iran.
Same.
H: Barclays, RBS, HSBC and Lloyds were forced to compensate thousands of small businesses who were mis-sold complex insurance deals. In 2013, the Financial Standards Authority said that it found 90 per cent of cases it examined did not comply with regulatory requirements.
Same
In 2014, US and UK regulators imposed a £2.6bn fine on five banks for conspiring to manipulate foreign exchange rates. Investigators found there was a "free for all culture" rife on the trading floors of RBS, HSBC, Citibank, JP Morgan and UBS. HSBC was fined £216m, the biggest fine of all British banks.
Same
H: You seem not to read the newspapers, RJD.
You seem incapable of justifying your claims H. Stick to your claims and then tell us about the subsequent to 2010 reforms to the Banking Sector. Tell us about the decline in bonuses received/earned and the increases in revenues extracted by one George Osborne. Tell us about the reforms that have brought about stronger balance sheets and a lower risk that this sector will, once again, play fast and loose on the roulette wheel as it did under NL. Tell us how it is that it takes a Tory Gov. to enact Laws that can/will put rogues into HM Prisons. H you are just full of emotional one-sided, nay Partisan, worthy of the Red Nag Myth Machine and very ignorant. If you want to debate this subject then learn to substantiate your emotional outbursts.
I provided dates. You know who was in power then.
I see no dates in your text. ... Look again.
Edited by Heinrich, Aug 24 2015, 11:48 AM.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Aug 24 2015, 01:03 PM
Post #983
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- RJD
- Aug 24 2015, 07:52 AM
- C-too
- Aug 24 2015, 06:56 AM
- Cymru
- Aug 24 2015, 03:17 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deeppredictedcausesNot when you preside over a lack of regulation over the financial markets which causes a crash
1.  No one would invest in (I think you mean trade in) "dodgy American securities" if they knew them to be dodgy. The parcels involved in the international financial markets that contained the toxic debts and did the damage, had AAA ratings. i.e. No one knew they were dodgy. 2. No one has showed what possible problems would have been caused by a so called UK created crash if there had not been the problem of the international financial meltdown. You could start by reading the information I posted in post 1024 on page 26. 3. The crash was caused by the US Toxic Debts, as already explained. 4. The idea that all countries involved in buying these parcels knew they contained toxic debts that had been slipped into the international financial markets, is laughable nonsense.
Pure Strawman. NL provided the environment of cheap money and lax controls over risks. It instituted a change in the way this sector was to be regulated and told it to use a light touch. NL pumped up the cost of the Public Sector, yes "running costs" not to be confused with the monstrous PFI splurge, which when the down turn in receipts came about were no longer affordable. NL from 2002 funded it's growth in Public Spending ahead of Tax Receipts by borrowing. Yes borrowing to feed current consumption a taboo according to one Gordon Brown. The only person you deceive C2 is yourself and on this matter in this forum you regularly make a fool of yourself. Yes the UK would not, even if it had been extremely prudent with Public Spending, have avoided damage to the economy, but we would have made the Osborne-Brown legacy of National Debt so much more palatable. The charge against Brown is that he pumped up Public Spending to levels well beyond that affordable from Receipts and that in return we received little that was a commensurate benefit. The charge against Brown is that he allowed Balls to foist on us a new system of regulation that was untried, untested and when needed was found wanting. Stick to these genuine charges and stop hiding behind Strawmen. Your OPINIONS are far too blinkered and biased to be taken seriously. They have mostly been repudiated over and over again.
I suggest you read post, 1024 on page 26 for a very different assessment to yours. Done by people who would have done in depth research.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Aug 24 2015, 01:08 PM
Post #984
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- C-too
- Aug 24 2015, 01:03 PM
- RJD
- Aug 24 2015, 07:52 AM
- C-too
- Aug 24 2015, 06:56 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deeppredictedcausesNot when you preside over a lack of regulation over the financial markets which causes a crashtoxic debts that had been slipped into the international financial markets, is laughable nonsense.
Pure Strawman. NL provided the environment of cheap money and lax controls over risks. It instituted a change in the way this sector was to be regulated and told it to use a light touch. NL pumped up the cost of the Public Sector, yes "running costs" not to be confused with the monstrous PFI splurge, which when the down turn in receipts came about were no longer affordable. NL from 2002 funded it's growth in Public Spending ahead of Tax Receipts by borrowing. Yes borrowing to feed current consumption a taboo according to one Gordon Brown. The only person you deceive C2 is yourself and on this matter in this forum you regularly make a fool of yourself. Yes the UK would not, even if it had been extremely prudent with Public Spending, have avoided damage to the economy, but we would have made the Osborne-Brown legacy of National Debt so much more palatable. The charge against Brown is that he pumped up Public Spending to levels well beyond that affordable from Receipts and that in return we received little that was a commensurate benefit. The charge against Brown is that he allowed Balls to foist on us a new system of regulation that was untried, untested and when needed was found wanting. Stick to these genuine charges and stop hiding behind Strawmen.
Your OPINIONS are far too blinkered and biased to be taken seriously. They have mostly been repudiated over and over again. I suggest you read post, 1024 on page 26 for a very different assessment to yours. Done by people who would have done in depth research. Problem for you is that all the evidence is in the public domain and is irrefutable, hence your need to constantly put up the Strawman. Clearly those who use the irrefutable evidence are blinkered in your view, but that is to be expected. I expect any day now for you to claim that Brown did not spend one Penny more than the amount received in the way of tax receipts and that the Tripartite system of regulation designed by Balls and installed by Brown saved the Planet. Maybe I am to some degree blinkered, but you are totally blind.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Aug 24 2015, 01:14 PM
Post #985
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- Cymru
- Aug 24 2015, 08:38 AM
- C-too
- Aug 24 2015, 06:56 AM
1.  No one would invest in (I think you mean trade in) "dodgy American securities" if they knew them to be dodgy. The parcels involved in the international financial markets that contained the toxic debts and did the damage, had AAA ratings. i.e. No one knew they were dodgy.
Of course they would! It was trade off between risk and reward, and so long as the market was good the reward for trading in these dodgy securities was worth the risk. - Quote:
-
2. No one has showed what possible problems would have been caused by a so called UK created crash if there had not been the problem of the international financial meltdown. You could start by reading the information I posted in post 1024 on page 26.
No one to my knowledge has spoken of a UK crash existing in lieu of an international one. The point being made was that by not regulating our own financial sector we were left completely exposed to the contagion spreading from America. - Quote:
-
3. The crash was caused by the US Toxic Debts, as already explained.
If our financial sector was regulated it could have been insulated from the worst of the American contagion. - Quote:
-
4. The idea that all countries involved in buying these parcels knew they contained toxic debts that had been slipped into the international financial markets, is laughable nonsense.
No it was standard practice. Conclusion, chancellors in different countries would willingly trade in commodities KNOWING THEM to contain TOXIC DEBTS that could screw up Western economies for decades. Thus giving the West the worst economic crisis for generations.
Cymru, you are a joke.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Aug 24 2015, 01:32 PM
Post #986
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- C-too
- Aug 24 2015, 01:14 PM
- Cymru
- Aug 24 2015, 08:38 AM
- C-too
- Aug 24 2015, 06:56 AM
1.  No one would invest in (I think you mean trade in) "dodgy American securities" if they knew them to be dodgy. The parcels involved in the international financial markets that contained the toxic debts and did the damage, had AAA ratings. i.e. No one knew they were dodgy.
Of course they would! It was trade off between risk and reward, and so long as the market was good the reward for trading in these dodgy securities was worth the risk. - Quote:
-
2. No one has showed what possible problems would have been caused by a so called UK created crash if there had not been the problem of the international financial meltdown. You could start by reading the information I posted in post 1024 on page 26.
No one to my knowledge has spoken of a UK crash existing in lieu of an international one. The point being made was that by not regulating our own financial sector we were left completely exposed to the contagion spreading from America. - Quote:
-
3. The crash was caused by the US Toxic Debts, as already explained.
If our financial sector was regulated it could have been insulated from the worst of the American contagion. - Quote:
-
4. The idea that all countries involved in buying these parcels knew they contained toxic debts that had been slipped into the international financial markets, is laughable nonsense.
No it was standard practice.
Conclusion, chancellors in different countries would willingly trade in commodities KNOWING THEM to contain TOXIC DEBTS that could screw up Western economies for decades. Thus giving the West the worst economic crisis for generations. Cymru, you are a joke. Why? How did you jump to that conclusion?
Greenspan and Brown could have opted for sound money, reduced the rate of money supply and tightened up on regulations that controlled risks and demanded much greater product transparency. They chose to do the opposite and claiming that the Tories and/or the Republicans were supportive is no argument against the fact that they, Brown and Greenspan, were in Gov. and made the wrong choices. Had those with the responsibility made the right choices then the World today would be a much securer place. As the IMF pointed out the era of cheap money and lax credit ended up overheating our economy as well as placing us in the worst position to absorb the downturn of any G20 country.
There is a reason for Brown's voluntary purdah and removal from public life, he knows that we all know he made wrong choices. Time you did!
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Aug 24 2015, 01:41 PM
Post #987
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- RJD
- Aug 24 2015, 01:08 PM
- C-too
- Aug 24 2015, 01:03 PM
- RJD
- Aug 24 2015, 07:52 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deeppredictedcausesNot when you preside over a lack of regulation over the financial markets which causes a crashtoxic debts
Your OPINIONS are far too blinkered and biased to be taken seriously. They have mostly been repudiated over and over again. I suggest you read post, 1024 on page 26 for a very different assessment to yours. Done by people who would have done in depth research.
Problem for you is that all the evidence is in the public domain and is irrefutable, hence your need to constantly put up the Strawman. Clearly those who use the irrefutable evidence are blinkered in your view, but that is to be expected. I expect any day now for you to claim that Brown did not spend one Penny more than the amount received in the way of tax receipts and that the Tripartite system of regulation designed by Balls and installed by Brown saved the Planet. Maybe I am to some degree blinkered, but you are totally blind. It is your opinionated and biased conclusions on the so called available evidence that is simply wrong.
Not for the first time;
According to a Select Committee, as seen on the political channel (SKY TV) both the Conservative minister and the Labour MP agreed that SOME early PFIs were a bad deal for the tax payer and needed to be re-negotiated. All school PFIs were a good deal for the tax payer. So when you lump it all together you create a misleading picture. The costs of PFIs; 1. Are a cost payable over 30 years. 2. As far as I'm aware, the cost includes 30 years of building and grounds maintenance. 3. Any debate on the costs will only make sense if. Firstly, the cost of a non-PFI build is subtracted from the cost of a PFI build. The difference in cost is the debatable point. Just lumping all PFI costs together, presumably for affect, creates a very misleading picture. Further to that, do we need to add 30 years of maintenance costs to non-PFI builds to give an even clearer picture of costs ?
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Aug 24 2015, 01:42 PM
Post #988
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- RJD
- Aug 24 2015, 01:32 PM
- C-too
- Aug 24 2015, 01:14 PM
- Cymru
- Aug 24 2015, 08:38 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Conclusion, chancellors in different countries would willingly trade in commodities KNOWING THEM to contain TOXIC DEBTS that could screw up Western economies for decades. Thus giving the West the worst economic crisis for generations. Cymru, you are a joke.
Why? How did you jump to that conclusion? Greenspan and Brown could have opted for sound money, reduced the rate of money supply and tightened up on regulations that controlled risks and demanded much greater product transparency. They chose to do the opposite and claiming that the Tories and/or the Republicans were supportive is no argument against the fact that they, Brown and Greenspan, were in Gov. and made the wrong choices. Had those with the responsibility made the right choices then the World today would be a much securer place. As the IMF pointed out the era of cheap money and lax credit ended up overheating our economy as well as placing us in the worst position to absorb the downturn of any G20 country. There is a reason for Brown's voluntary purdah and removal from public life, he knows that we all know he made wrong choices. Time you did! Can't you read ?
Edited by C-too, Aug 24 2015, 01:43 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Aug 24 2015, 01:54 PM
Post #989
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
C2: t is your opinionated and biased conclusions on the so called available evidence that is simply wrong.
Not for the first time;
According to a Select Committee, as seen on the political channel (SKY TV) both the Conservative minister and the Labour MP agreed that SOME early PFIs were a bad deal for the tax payer and needed to be re-negotiated. All school PFIs were a good deal for the tax payer. So when you lump it all together you create a misleading picture. The costs of PFIs; 1. Are a cost payable over 30 years. 2. As far as I'm aware, the cost includes 30 years of building and grounds maintenance. 3. Any debate on the costs will only make sense if. Firstly, the cost of a non-PFI build is subtracted from the cost of a PFI build. The difference in cost is the debatable point. Just lumping all PFI costs together, presumably for affect, creates a very misleading picture. Further to that, do we need to add 30 years of maintenance costs to non-PFI builds to give an even clearer picture of costs ?
Why do you refer to PFI? Surely you are able to read my postings, so why choose to shift ground? Sorry that tactic is unacceptable. Learn to stick to the point, stop your ground shifting and your continued resort to the Strawman.
I made no reference to the magnitude of PFI during the NL years or which projects were or were not good, bad or reasonable value for money. When I have, in the past referred to such spending it has been wrt to the "financing costs" not the content of the provisions in such programmes, I assumed you can understand what that means. I have also pointed out that NL pumped up PFI from the £10b instituted by the Major Gov. to well over £270b by the end of the NL term. As for which projects were good or bad I leave you to provide such a list. However, it is worth pointing out that the financing costs, if such projects were financed directly by the Treasury rather than Banks, would be significantly lower than the very best achieved by NL. Why pay 5% or 10% or 15% or even 18% for that which you can obtain for <2%? Seems to me that Politicians are very lax with Taxpayer's money.
|
|
|
| |
|
Cymru
|
Aug 24 2015, 02:10 PM
Post #990
|
- Posts:
- 3,504
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #3
- Joined:
- Jun 26, 2014
|
- C-too
- Aug 24 2015, 01:14 PM
- Cymru
- Aug 24 2015, 08:38 AM
- C-too
- Aug 24 2015, 06:56 AM
1.  No one would invest in (I think you mean trade in) "dodgy American securities" if they knew them to be dodgy. The parcels involved in the international financial markets that contained the toxic debts and did the damage, had AAA ratings. i.e. No one knew they were dodgy.
Of course they would! It was trade off between risk and reward, and so long as the market was good the reward for trading in these dodgy securities was worth the risk. - Quote:
-
2. No one has showed what possible problems would have been caused by a so called UK created crash if there had not been the problem of the international financial meltdown. You could start by reading the information I posted in post 1024 on page 26.
No one to my knowledge has spoken of a UK crash existing in lieu of an international one. The point being made was that by not regulating our own financial sector we were left completely exposed to the contagion spreading from America. - Quote:
-
3. The crash was caused by the US Toxic Debts, as already explained.
If our financial sector was regulated it could have been insulated from the worst of the American contagion. - Quote:
-
4. The idea that all countries involved in buying these parcels knew they contained toxic debts that had been slipped into the international financial markets, is laughable nonsense.
No it was standard practice.
Conclusion, chancellors in different countries would willingly trade in commodities KNOWING THEM to contain TOXIC DEBTS that could screw up Western economies for decades. Thus giving the West the worst economic crisis for generations. Cymru, you are a joke. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateralized_debt_obligation#Transaction_participants
Educate yourself.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Aug 24 2015, 04:09 PM
Post #991
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- RJD
- Aug 24 2015, 01:54 PM
C2: t is your opinionated and biased conclusions on the so called available evidence that is simply wrong.
Not for the first time;
According to a Select Committee, as seen on the political channel (SKY TV) both the Conservative minister and the Labour MP agreed that SOME early PFIs were a bad deal for the tax payer and needed to be re-negotiated. All school PFIs were a good deal for the tax payer. So when you lump it all together you create a misleading picture. The costs of PFIs; 1. Are a cost payable over 30 years. 2. As far as I'm aware, the cost includes 30 years of building and grounds maintenance. 3. Any debate on the costs will only make sense if. Firstly, the cost of a non-PFI build is subtracted from the cost of a PFI build. The difference in cost is the debatable point. Just lumping all PFI costs together, presumably for affect, creates a very misleading picture. Further to that, do we need to add 30 years of maintenance costs to non-PFI builds to give an even clearer picture of costs ?
Why do you refer to PFI? Surely you are able to read my postings, so why choose to shift ground? Sorry that tactic is unacceptable. Learn to stick to the point, stop your ground shifting and your continued resort to the Strawman.
I made no reference to the magnitude of PFI during the NL years or which projects were or were not good, bad or reasonable value for money. When I have, in the past referred to such spending it has been wrt to the "financing costs" not the content of the provisions in such programmes, I assumed you can understand what that means. I have also pointed out that NL pumped up PFI from the £10b instituted by the Major Gov. to well over £270b by the end of the NL term. As for which projects were good or bad I leave you to provide such a list. However, it is worth pointing out that the financing costs, if such projects were financed directly by the Treasury rather than Banks, would be significantly lower than the very best achieved by NL. Why pay 5% or 10% or 15% or even 18% for that which you can obtain for <2%? Seems to me that Politicians are very lax with Taxpayer's money.
By all means wriggle around the points made and reaffirm you biased over opinionated beliefs. I don't really care about your bigoted approach and I suspect few are influenced by it.
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Aug 24 2015, 06:18 PM
Post #992
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Aug 24 2015, 11:34 AM
More like it was the government and BoE tearing up the regulations and encouraging irresponsibility
What regulations were torn up? The 'Big Bang' gave them all the leeway (and encouragement) to break rules and behave irresponsibly - it started before 1997.
It is impossible for me to read your attacks on Brown, defence of Thatcher, and not be convinced of where your political affiliations lie. Attaching too much blame to Eddy George and Merv King in an effort to spare Banker's blushes and increase Brown's damnation is what Tory activists do - they shield their benefactors.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Aug 24 2015, 06:26 PM
Post #993
|
- Posts:
- 33,941
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Affa
- Aug 24 2015, 06:18 PM
- Steve K
- Aug 24 2015, 11:34 AM
More like it was the government and BoE tearing up the regulations and encouraging irresponsibility
What regulations were torn up? The 'Big Bang' gave them all the leeway (and encouragement) to break rules and behave irresponsibly - it started before 1997. It is impossible for me to read your attacks on Brown, defence of Thatcher, and not be convinced of where your political affiliations lie. Attaching too much blame to Eddy George and Merv King in an effort to spare Banker's blushes and increase Brown's damnation is what Tory activists do - they shield their benefactors. There you go again making up false stories about my supposed "defence of Thatcher"
False is false Affa, why do you tell lies?
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Aug 24 2015, 06:27 PM
Post #994
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- RJD
- Aug 24 2015, 04:19 PM
- C-too
- Aug 24 2015, 04:09 PM
- RJD
- Aug 24 2015, 01:54 PM
C2: t is your opinionated and biased conclusions on the so called available evidence that is simply wrong.
Not for the first time;
According to a Select Committee, as seen on the political channel (SKY TV) both the Conservative minister and the Labour MP agreed that SOME early PFIs were a bad deal for the tax payer and needed to be re-negotiated. All school PFIs were a good deal for the tax payer. So when you lump it all together you create a misleading picture. The costs of PFIs; 1. Are a cost payable over 30 years. 2. As far as I'm aware, the cost includes 30 years of building and grounds maintenance. 3. Any debate on the costs will only make sense if. Firstly, the cost of a non-PFI build is subtracted from the cost of a PFI build. The difference in cost is the debatable point. Just lumping all PFI costs together, presumably for affect, creates a very misleading picture. Further to that, do we need to add 30 years of maintenance costs to non-PFI builds to give an even clearer picture of costs ?
Why do you refer to PFI? Surely you are able to read my postings, so why choose to shift ground? Sorry that tactic is unacceptable. Learn to stick to the point, stop your ground shifting and your continued resort to the Strawman.
I made no reference to the magnitude of PFI during the NL years or which projects were or were not good, bad or reasonable value for money. When I have, in the past referred to such spending it has been wrt to the "financing costs" not the content of the provisions in such programmes, I assumed you can understand what that means. I have also pointed out that NL pumped up PFI from the £10b instituted by the Major Gov. to well over £270b by the end of the NL term. As for which projects were good or bad I leave you to provide such a list. However, it is worth pointing out that the financing costs, if such projects were financed directly by the Treasury rather than Banks, would be significantly lower than the very best achieved by NL. Why pay 5% or 10% or 15% or even 18% for that which you can obtain for <2%? Seems to me that Politicians are very lax with Taxpayer's money.
By all means wriggle around the points made and reaffirm you biased over opinionated beliefs. I don't really care about your bigoted approach and I suspect few are influenced by it.
C2 you have become a a resident fool. You seem to have lost the plot. I now doubt that you can focus much on the debate in hand, maybe we are seeing in you the early stages of mental disintegration. Keep focussed and stop the childish insults if you are able. It is well known that those suffering from such disintegration become rude, abusive and lack focus. Still look on the good side your slide into oblivion has taken place with good timing to coincide with that of the Party you adore. Your usual MO is ignore relevant information and replace it with your bigoted and biased opinions. Then you expect to be dealt with as a serious debater. When you insult me by using your usual MO then you should expect to be insulted by me.
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Aug 24 2015, 06:58 PM
Post #995
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Aug 24 2015, 06:26 PM
- Affa
- Aug 24 2015, 06:18 PM
- Steve K
- Aug 24 2015, 11:34 AM
More like it was the government and BoE tearing up the regulations and encouraging irresponsibility
What regulations were torn up? The 'Big Bang' gave them all the leeway (and encouragement) to break rules and behave irresponsibly - it started before 1997. It is impossible for me to read your attacks on Brown, defence of Thatcher, and not be convinced of where your political affiliations lie. Attaching too much blame to Eddy George and Merv King in an effort to spare Banker's blushes and increase Brown's damnation is what Tory activists do - they shield their benefactors.
There you go again making up false stories about my supposed "defence of Thatcher"False is false Affa, why do you tell lies? Defending the Big Bang and Thatcher Now how about some meat on the "torn up regulations" under Labour?
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Aug 24 2015, 07:03 PM
Post #996
|
- Posts:
- 33,941
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Affa
- Aug 24 2015, 06:58 PM
- Steve K
- Aug 24 2015, 06:26 PM
- Affa
- Aug 24 2015, 06:18 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
There you go again making up false stories about my supposed "defence of Thatcher"False is false Affa, why do you tell lies? Defending the Big Bang and ThatcherNow how about some meat on the "torn up regulations" under Labour? "Defending the Big Bang and Thatcher" That's another big fucking lie by you. Did you even read the post that links to? Did you even read the OP it refers to?
An apology is due and quick
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Aug 24 2015, 07:15 PM
Post #997
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
There is nothing "subjective" about it - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8850654/Was-the-Big-Bang-good-for-the-City-of-London-and-Britain.html
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Aug 24 2015, 07:19 PM
Post #998
|
- Posts:
- 33,941
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
Affa you are a serial liar, you'll forgive me if I ignore you for a while if you're just going to act like a total tosser too by posting that ^ in the wrong thread.
Does anyone else want to be a total tosser by endorsing affa's lie that I am a defender of Thatcher? The forum search engine will show you he is way out of his head on this one.
|
|
|
| |
|
Pro Veritas
|
Aug 24 2015, 07:24 PM
Post #999
|
- Posts:
- 7,014
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #19
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34043557
Now I bet Yvette Cooper is just over the moon with that.
Brown is still so ignorant of how much he is despised that he thinks voting for someone does them a favour?
He always was f**king clueless.
All The Best
|
|
|
| |
|
Pro Veritas
|
Aug 24 2015, 07:28 PM
Post #1000
|
- Posts:
- 7,014
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #19
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Aug 24 2015, 07:19 PM
Does anyone else want to be a total tosser by endorsing affa's lie that I am a defender of Thatcher? The forum search engine will show you he is way out of his head on this one. I really do not need the forum search engine to know that you are NOT a defender of Thatcher.
And if the link that Affa supplied to your debate with RJD over the impact of some of Thatcher's policies is the best he has then he most assuredly does owe you an apology.
All The Best
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|