[Closed] My Mrs Said the Strangest Thing Last Night

molgrips - Member

But somewhere, something has to be manufactured surely?

No, not at all. Why would it?

Molegrips. Please explain how investment banking works. The creation of money from money, without either making or selling an item or service, is in accounting terms fraud.

I like Will Huttons description of Investment Banking:

Money talking to itself

The creation of money from money, without either making or selling an item or service, is in accounting terms fraud

Because money isn't really money, it's just a promise of money. What you're really exchanging is assessments of value.

He is not politically motivated to avoid tax he is doing it because he is ****ing greedy and morally bankrupt
This shower now give him a governmental position to lecture us on tax avoidance and how to reduce it

I don't think you understand.

I am not trying to claim anything

The point I am trying to make is that all money circulates.

I do not think that this £50m is dead money to the UK economy,

I am trying to ask questions and promote discussion.

You do however seem to be claiming a lot.

molgrips - Member
Because money isn't really money, it's just a promise of money. What you're really exchanging is assessments of value.

So it's fraud then? Or the recession is not real because nobody has lost any "money", it's just investment bankers don't think it's worth what it was last week?

SORRY.

I'm going to self moderate now. I'm trolling. I'm out of here.

The creation of money from money, without either making or selling an item or service, is in accounting terms fraud.

Financial Products, thats the catch all for this , using specialist financial instruments...

Will Hutton is being disingenuous to say the least. Ok so there are plenty of things rotten with the investment banking industry but to suggest that it provides little or no positive contribution to society is hogwash.

Governments, corporates, other financial institutions and individuals all need financing (loans, debt, equity), FX transactions need to be made, risks need to be hedged etc. investment banks provide very valuable services in these and many other areas. So Hutton and Vince Cable need to grow up and use their undoubted brains ie, for a business secretary to constantly refer to all IBs as casinos is ridiculous in the extreme. That is not to say that the structure of banking doesn't need serious rethinking, but we already have some proposals for that in the UK via Vickers.

Similarly taking extremes at either end of arguments ie benefit scrounges at one end and tax avoiders at the other and then extrapolating them across the majority of the population is equally absurd.

But to explore absurdity for one moment, if the "workers" really do want to celebrate and hide being old fashioned myths (including the concept of workers itself) then they should be rejoicing if they believe that it is a struggle between workers and capitalists (it isn't BTW). With employment up and output down, productivity is declining in the UK (even when part time work is taken into account). So labour is being substituted for capital - rise up comrades, the mission is underway, the rejoicing can start! 😉

if they believe that it is a struggle between workers and capitalists (it isn't BTW)

All our (you know... the 'little people') financial transactions incur tax. The mega-rich just devise schemes where theirs don't. And the government - mainly multi-millionaires themselves remember - see this as perfectly acceptable

I think it's really unfair that you attack the use of tax allowances related to property by Ed (the millionaire but never had a proper job and son of a Marxist) Miliband

He's got enough to worry about fetching the other Ed's coffee and watching him brief the CBI that he would do the same as the current lot

[i]FX transactions need to be made[/i]?
[i]risks need to be hedged[/i]?

why?

🙂 JY - not many companies can sustain themselves without satisfying the needs of all constituents ie, customers, workers, and providers of capital. So exploiting any one of these is hadly a recipe for LT success.

Because we are a trading nation. Payments need to be made. Payments are also delayed, at risk etc so these risks need to be hedged.

Assets and liabilities need to be managed - think about your pension as an example. Banks can and do play important roles in these important areas of business.

Imagine what would happen to public services, if governments were not able to access capital markets?

by definition, if you work for someone else you are being 'exploited'--- its moved on a bit from whips and chains i'll grant you that, but the value of your 'work' is enhanced by the user, so by definition you have been exploited.

No you are not, you are engaging in a simple economic transaction. You are supplying your labour (a factor of production) in exchange for wages (a factor payment). That is not, [i]by definition[/i], exploitation.

"I think that making it look like an omnishambles is all part of the plot. When it comes to the true blue Tory ideological stuff, they're refusing to stray off course, no matter what happens. George Osbournes 'There is no Plan B" being just the starkest and most obvious example

The rest of the stuff is just noise

They're busy bulldozing through the irreversible dismantling of the state at a frankly alarming rate. Policing, Education and Health are all being prepped for full scale privatisation. And if they get it all through, there will be no going back

History will view this lot as the most radical and destructive government this country has ever seen. Thatchers divisive legacy will pail into insignificance next to the long term damage this lot are wreaking

The most depressing thing about the whole thing is the virtual silence and total impotence from the utterly pathetic Millibean led Labour party. They're a disgrace, not worthy of the name 'opposition'"

Be afraid. Be very afraid!
What a great summing up of this government - well said 'Binners'
Look no further than the complete mess Somerset is in with the private 'South West One privatisation' costing us thousands and totally incompetent - now 'Somerset' and 'South West One' are suing each other!!!!

Think you were spot on with MilliBLAND where is he?

3bikeman- are you talking about Obama in the US or the Tories here? 😉

That is not, by definition, exploitation.

ex·ploi·ta·tion? ?[ek-sploi-tey-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
use or utilization, especially for profit: the exploitation of newly discovered oil fields

Berm Bandit - Member

... does anyone want to admit to still having confidence in the Jolly Boys Outing currently taking place at Numbers 10 & 11 Downing street?

Yes. They are jolly so that's enough. Do you expect things to change that quickly after a long period of previous gov't?

ahoy there , right wing defender on the starboard quarter

if i bury my head in the sand, things seem to go away...

ahoy there , right wing defender on the starboard quarter

rudebwoy - Member

ahoy there , right wing defender on the starboard quarter

Right wing is lame ...

I prefer Ultimate Dear Leader God of the Gods that step on maggots.

Right wing, left wing, centre wing, etc ... all maggots!

Maggots all of them!

without doubt, they all piss in the same pot, parliamentary democracy is but a sham, given a veneer of legitimacy to enable it to function.

JY - a somewhat narrow definition there 😉 But even so, not true that working for someone else means that you are being exploited. It may be the case, but does not have to be, nor is it in most cases IMO.

I think maybe we need some of this - trying to get national government to do anything progressive/useful is virtually pointless - they are all either actively corrupt or so compromised as to be useless.

We are sleepwalking into an oligrachy in this country (or maybe we're already there).

"When we got to the city council we realized we had to transform power," Sánchez Gordillo explains. "The power that had previously worked to oppress, could not also work to liberate." He refers to this as counter-power, an inversion of the existing pyramid: "The power of poor people against the power of the rich. For this counter-power to be effective, we realized that participation was fundamental. This is why we organized everything around an assembly - an assembly that was open to all workers, regardless of political affinity."

The assembly, attended by an average of 300-400 townspeople, takes place more or less weekly, throughout the year. "The starting point was political democracy. But we realized that political democracy without economic democracy doesn't work." With many families still mired in poverty, it was at this point that their focus turned to direct action. "The only way to obtain work was to obtain land." And so in the 1980s, the "struggle for land" began.

"Everything was drying up in the area. So the first struggle was to find water to irrigate the land. After many mobilizations we were assured there would be water. Then we started to fight for land itself. We saw that the Duke of Infantal had the most lands - 17,000 hectares between Andalusia and Extremadura. So we fought the duke for 12 years! We occupied his land, we cut off roads, and at the same time we pressured the government. We went to Málaga and Seville airports and shut them down: we broke the airport fence and went onto the landing strip. The police threw us out, and we'd do it again. We went to the Andalusian government in Seville, to the national government in Madrid, we did demonstrations on foot; all of this struggle was meant to pressure the duke and pressure the government, so those lands would be given to us."

He says it all so matter-of-factly; reeling off an itemized list of struggle like it was an instruction manual.

What's stunning about the success of the land seizures is the sheer stamina and persistence of their direct action. The Spanish government was never going to just hand over land, of course. But the Marinaleños kept going and going - occupying, protesting, disrupting - even going on a mass hunger strike. After 12 years of struggle, with the resolve of the authorities finally weakening, incredibly, they won, securing 1,200 hectares of the duke's land for farming.

http://elpais.com/elpais/2012/09/18/inenglish/1347968259_513226.html

It may be the case, but does not have to be, nor is it in most cases IMO.

Its a big old world out there, we live in a comparatively wealthy part of it, the vast majority of humanity do not, so i will say that in most cases the exchange of labour is an exploitative one IMO

Bit amazed to find this still going, just read through pages 2 and 3 and was just thinking how amazing it was that it had got to over 100 posts sticking reasonably firmly to the OP where it said

Without getting all aggressive and territorial, [u]and most definately without going on about what any previous government did or didn't do[/u]

...............and then chewkw popped his head over the parapet...shame on you!

on that note , i shall leave the room, got some horses to back......

Ok I wasn't getting upset, and I wasn't trying to make anyone else upset. And I definitely wasn't trolling.

I was just talking about economics. I want to know exactly WHY you think the money that rich poeple make doesn't end up in the pockets of the rest of us eventually.

I'm not trying to make a political point, I'm not a political flag waver, I just want to clear up what I suspect might be misconceptions that are being USED to argue political points.

I want to know exactly WHY you think the money that rich poeple make doesn't end up in the pockets of the rest of us eventually.

I want to know exactly WHY you think the money that rich poeple make doesn't end up in the pockets of the rest of us eventually.

Because it doesn't? See the massive growth of the gap between rich and poor. Bit out of date now but interesting how it started to shoot up around 1980 eh?

[img] [/img]

Figure 9 shows how the income gap between rich and poor in Britain has widened since 1960. The vertical axis measures the ratio between the income received by the highest-paid 10% of the population in comparison with that received by the poorest 10%. It will be seen that in the 1960s and 1970s, the rich earned about three times more than the poor. However, after Mrs. Thatcher came into office in 1979, there was a rapid increase in the incomes of the better-off and now they earn around four times more than the least well-off. Source: Institute for Fiscal Studies.

I just want to clear up what I suspect might be misconceptions that are being USED to argue political points

Problem is that the answer very much depends on your political persuasion and belief system. For my tennpenneth, the concept that it is valid to tax the arse off a lowly paid individual whislt not taxing an extremly highly paid one, on the basis that what the rich dude spends benefits the poor fella, whilst it doesn't do likewise the other way round starts the process off from a bad place IMHO. I mean you don't think Phillip Green actually dresses his Mrs at M & $ do you? So I'm guessing his wealth accrues from poor people who do, thus if you accept that point it is obvious to that its actually a case of what the poor people spend benefits the rich, thus the tax argument surely should be the opposite.....shouldn't it? 😯

See the massive growth of the gap between rich and poor. Bit out of date now but interesting how it started to shoot up around 1980 eh?

Hmm.. too many possible variables for that graph to provide insight there I reckon.

Anyone got a graph between the actual income value of the top 20% vs bottom 20%?

The gap between rich and poor increasing doesn't necessarily mean that the poor are actually getting poorer, does it?

the concept that it is valid to tax the arse off a lowly paid individual whislt not taxing an extremly highly paid one, on the basis that what the rich dude spends benefits the poor fella, whilst it doesn't do likewise the other way round starts the process off from a bad place IMHO

Well quite. However the taxation issue is a *slight* sidetrack because even if you tax rich people the same or more, they still have more money available. It's what happens when they spend this money that I am interested in.

Indeed Grum, a little out of date. Income inequality rose under Thatcher, fell v slightly under Major, rose slightly under Blair, fell very slightly under Brown and again under Cameron. So after Thatcher, not really a partisan political issue.

IFS Living Standards and Inequality June 2012: "the falls in income were proportionately larger for richer househols which meant that inequality fell sharply in 2010-11."

Indeed Grum, a little out of date. Income inequality rose under Thatcher, fell v slightly under Major, rose slightly under Blair, fell very slightly under Brown and again under Cameron. So after Thatcher, not really a partisan political issue.

Um..... I thought income inequality was rising massively at the moment, but I don't have the figures to hand. It didn't just rise under Thatcher though did it - it rose massively, then fell a little bit under Major.

And the long term trend [wealth inequality]is what thm? Up or down over the last 40-50 years? UP
What has the top tax rate been like over this time frame ? DOWN
I wonder if there is a link?

Anyone got a graph between the actual income value of the top 20% vs bottom 20%?

I was just talking about economics. I want to know exactly WHY you think the money that rich poeple make doesn't end up in the pockets of the rest of us eventually.

Money flow is definitely circular, but its circular for all, so it matters not who is spending it, so I think the concept of the rich having special magic money is the one that most people responding to you are struggling to cope with. If you think about it if the present Governments argument that rich people contribute through spending is correct, then its also correct if the government tax heavilly and then spend surely? Thus directly contradicting the current slash and burn policies with their own argument.

I think the flaw in the "rich have magic money" is the concept that they spend it all, thus keeping us poor people in the style we would like to become acquainted with. They don't, thats why they remain rich.

Lies, lies and damned statistics

grum - Member
Um..... I thought income inequality was rising massively at the moment, but I don't have the figures to hand. It didn't just rise under Thatcher though did it - it rose massively, then fell a little bit under Major.

True about Thatcher but you may be interested in the IFS analysis that concluded:

One of David Cameron's key themes in his speech to the Conservative Party conference was that Labour has "made the poorest poorer", "left youth unemployment higher" and "made inequality greater". How fair are these accusations?

We reported earlier this year that, until 2007-08, the latest year for which we have data, the third term of this Government has seen a rise in income inequality, and a fall in the income of the poorest fifth of the population, justifying Cameron's claims. But Labour's record over their entire term in office is slightly different. Cameron's claim that income inequality has risen is still true over this longer period: income inequality was slightly higher in 2007-08 than in 1996-97. However, since 1996-97, there has been positive income growth, after allowing for inflation, at almost every part of the income distribution except amongst the poorest 3 per cent of the population. It is, therefore, technically true that those with the very lowest incomes now have lower incomes than in 1996-97, but we have argued that difficulties in recording income amongst some groups means that those with the lowest reported incomes can often have very high living standards . So the fall in income for those with the very lowest recorded incomes is probably not, therefore, a good guide to what has actually happened to the poorest in society.

How do overall trends in poverty and inequality compare with those observed under the last period of Conservative government between 1979 and 1997? As the figure below shows, income inequality rose substantially during the 1980s, dwarfing the small increase under Labour to date. And the incomes of the poorest 2 per cent of the population were lower in 1996-97 than they were in 1979, similar to what has happened under Labour. As can be seen in our annual report on poverty and inequality and our on-line inequality data resource, there was also a large rise in relative poverty during the 1980s, which compares with a small fall under Labour to date (although relative poverty amongst working-age adults without children has risen since 1997-98). Furthermore, we have found that direct tax and benefit changes made by the previous Conservative governments acted to increase income inequality, whereas those made by since 1997-98 have benefitted the poor by more than the rich.

IFS 2009

A little murky for those trying to make political points IMO

This is interesting. AFAICS it suggests the gap between the 'normal rich' and everyone else has gone back down a bit, while the top 1% shoot off up almost exponentially away from everyone else.

http://www.rssenews.org.uk/2012/06/uk-income-inequality-at-levels-last-seen-in-early-1940s-professor-danny-dorling-will-say-in-rss-beveridge-lecture/

A little murky for those trying to make political points IMO

It's not that murky is it? Seems mostly pretty clear.

That may well be so grum. If I am correct, the IFS uses four measures - the Gini coefficient, the 90/10, the 50/10 and the 90/50 rule for their main analysis. So their conclusions ignore the 1% issue (I believe).

Hence a problem for the Tories because despite the political noise, their main support groups include many that have been squeezed relatively hard in the recession.

If you think about it if the present Governments argument that rich people contribute through spending is correct, then its also correct if the government tax heavilly and then spend surely?

Yeah except that the Government can choose on whom to spend it. Which is great for the properly disadvantaged. If you let the rich people spend their money on whatever they please, they might only spend it on things that other rich people provide, and so on.

The govt should be able to use the money a lot more effectively than just letting it do its own thing. In theory and, to an extent, in practice.

the falls in income were proportionately larger for richer househols which meant that inequality fell sharply in 2010-11

The graph on page 21 shows it has been flat from 1990 and rose under thatcher giving an upward trend from 79 and flat/slightly down [ recession caused really] since 1990
I am not sure why they say large as mean income fell by more than the top 10% - are they just comparing the top and bottom 10% THM for that quote?

it also notes that the benefits cuts and the reduction of the top rate of tax are likely to change this picture- last age iirc

It is murky THM and an interesting read- some of it is just an artefact of the recession IMHO but it seems reasonable to say it rose under thatcher and has stabilised since dropping only because wages did not keep pace with inflation whereas benefits did.

i dont think any party can truly have claimed to address this tbh

the article from which your quote comes and some interesting graphs

Out of interest, and again stepping away from party ideology for a moment, it is intersting that perhaps arguably the most successful recovery from debt and economic collapse in the 20th century was brought about by a policy of government spending to rejuvenate the economy. I am not in any way suggesting that some form of Nazi ideology is the way forward, however, in their early days it has to be said that Adolf and the boys did bring about a dramatic turnaround in post WW1 German fortunes.

For some of us JY 😉 yes it is an interesting read. Not doubt that it is murky though. The issue about wages and benefits and inflation is true and IFS acknowledge that and I am sure that can be spun to suit!!!

Just another example of how reality can and does differ markedly from the media/political spin that is put on it. Now austerity...oh, no forget it, its Friday afternoon...

...let the pundits play around with today's better data on the UK deficit. Rising employment stimulating rising tax revenues....hmm, and yet output data is (apparently) still down.

Murky old world out there.

or should that read...

...let the pundits play around with today's better data on the UK deficit. (apparently) Rising employment stimulating (apparently) rising tax revenues....hmm, and yet output data is still down.

very murky if you ask me

thm - the falling tax revenues with rising employment is easily explained. The nature of employment has changed dramatically.

As well as the 2.6 million unemployed, there are another 1.4 million who were in full time work before it all went tits up, but now can only get part time. Hence the lack of impact on tax take.

But binners that's not what is happening (nor what I said 😉 ) . Tax revenues were up today, not down, so all as to be expected. On changing nature of employment, true, but even adjusting for that productivity is down - hence my comment this morning that labour is being substituted for capital.

edit: but if, and it is an if at the moment, companies are hoarding labour, then the exploitation thesis starts to weaken!! The again, those evil capitalists may be exploiting their workers and the economy and productivity is a stronger than official GDP statistics suggest!!!

I am not in any way suggesting that some form of Nazi ideology is the way forward, however, in their early days it has to be said that Adolf and the boys did bring about a dramatic turnaround in post WW1 German fortunes.

Nothing dramatic imo.

It would have been extremely difficult for the Nazis to make the situation they inherited any worse. An improved economic situation through rearmament and infrastructure projects was a pretty much guaranteed. The German economy improved [i]dispite[/i] Nazi bureaucratic inefficiencies, deep internal rivalries, duplication of authority, and the purging of highly qualified Jews from their professions, not [i]because[/i] of that.

Don't believe Nazi Party spin.

but if, and it is an if at the moment, companies are hoarding labour, then the exploitation thesis starts to weaken!!

It is indeed. OOI, what is the relation between nationalisation and equal wealth/income? (actually that was merely a rhetorical question 😉 )