Jump to content

economic situation is dire


ianrobo1
 Share

Recommended Posts

My share 'portfolio' (what a strange word) took a not too shabby hit today, however, in it for the long haul so I'm sure I'll come out the other side ok.

 

and the shares your fund manager offloaded at £2.00 last week he can buy back tomorrow for 86p and make you a nice profit when they eventually climb back to around the £2 a share mark

 

easy money

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Can anyone explain to an idiot what's going on? 

 

Minimal collateral loans creating huge bubble in price of stuff, further margin lending backed by stuff at crazy prices (e.g., oil)... price drops, whoops

 

Lets see how long it takes for the parasitic bankers to look for a bailout of their precious free market again.

 

 

Bailouts have NOTHING to do with free markets, they are the antithesis of free market capitalism. You do know the essens of a free market is that it is free from government intervention? Blame greedy bankers and the politicians that enable them, but keep free markets out of it.

 

EDIT: If you actually believe the US have free market capitalism, you should put more hours into your self taught economic theory.

 

 

 

errr... I believe you have rather unfortunately misinterpreted my statement. I guess I should have put free market in quotations. I simply think

it's self-evident that the whole free market thing is silliness told to the plebs to make them feel all warm and fuzzy. See, you're poor and I'm

rich because I work hard and/or am smarter etc. than you. It's a free and fair system and you can make it too etc etc.

 

Now more QE please 'cause stawks and triwcle down

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Can anyone explain to an idiot what's going on? 

 

Minimal collateral loans creating huge bubble in price of stuff, further margin lending backed by stuff at crazy prices (e.g., oil)... price drops, whoops

 

Lets see how long it takes for the parasitic bankers to look for a bailout of their precious free market again.

 

 

Bailouts have NOTHING to do with free markets, they are the antithesis of free market capitalism. You do know the essens of a free market is that it is free from government intervention? Blame greedy bankers and the politicians that enable them, but keep free markets out of it.

 

EDIT: If you actually believe the US have free market capitalism, you should put more hours into your self taught economic theory.

 

 

 

errr... I believe you have rather unfortunately misinterpreted my statement. I guess I should have put free market in quotations. I simply think

it's self-evident that the whole free market thing is silliness told to the plebs to make them feel all warm and fuzzy. See, you're poor and I'm

rich because I work hard and/or am smarter etc. than you. It's a free and fair system and you can make it too etc etc.

 

Now more QE please 'cause stawks and triwcle down

 

 

I think I must have misinterpreted, but what has bailouts and QE got to do with free markets? The Fed wouldn't exist in a laissez-faire free market....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

  • 3 weeks later...

Latest Paul Mason column in The Grauniad 

It’s been a hard slog but three years into the Labour government – the first for more than a decade – the chancellor stands up at a union conference to announce: success.

“Income tax and surtax going up to 95p in the pound has meant there are only 70 people in this country today with more than £6,000 they can spend out of income,” he says. New rules on what the rich can claim against tax “will further curtail luxury expenditure, as will the special levy”.

The speaker, of course, is not John McDonnell. It is Sir Stafford Cripps and the time is not the 2020s but 1948. Cripps, chancellor in the Attlee administration, made the speech to the engineering unions conference that year. The text, newly rediscovered by professor Bill Cooke of York University, is a reminder that inequality did not disappear spontaneously in the postwar period. It was actively suppressed.

Labour’s problem then was that Britain had lost its empire and was facing the first of the “balance of payments” crises that would haunt chancellors from then until now. Cripps needed wages to rise more slowly than prices – and the sweetener was the attack on inequality.

Cripps told the unions he had sliced £580m off income tax payments for the poor, and extended the social wage by £800m – half of it in the form of food subsidies. Given that nominal GDP for that year was £12bn, the scale of this redistribution programme came to more than 11% of GDP. “Then,” added Cripps with a flourish, “we are taking steps to reduce profits.”

It is a programme to make Corbynomics look positively Thatcherite by comparison. A rough modern equivalent would involve today’s government spending £61bn on food subsidies alone. Yet Cripps and his generation were cutting with the grain of history.

The top 1% in Britain saw their share of income fall from 22% in the Edwardian era to 10% by the time Attlee lost power in 1951 – and most of that fall took place under Conservative governments. The postwar welfare state, together with rising real wages once the boom took off, would see the 1% income share fall to just above 5% by the time Margaret Thatcher took office.

Inequality: What Can Be Done? by Anthony B Atkinson review – a concrete plan for a fairer society

Now, it’s back at 15% and rising, according to research by Sir Anthony Atkinson, the UK’s leading authority on inequality. It has been driven not just by the rising salaries of CEOs and finance people, but by the switch from profits to asset wealth encouraged by governments of all stripes. If you bought a house in the London borough of Hackney 10 years ago, you will have seen its value double. If you’re obliged to pay rent on that house today, you are probably paying five times what you would have paid 10 years ago. The winner in both cases is the asset owner.

So what can we do? The first part of the answer is to understand the negative effects of inequality. Atkinson’s book, Inequality, published this summer, spells them out.

First, inequality punishes the unlucky. Lose your job and you are thrown back on your savings. Split up with your partner and you are thrown back on a single wage. If there is a reliable safety net of out-of-work benefits and social housing, personal catastrophes like this are survivable. Without them economic life becomes a lottery.

Next, inequality blights opportunity. Atkinson shows how being rich, or comfortably off, aids your ability to play the complex non-economic game. For a bright teenager, with guaranteed A*s upcoming, getting a train to Cambridge to see what it might be like still costs money. So does getting the tuition you might need to pass the additional entry exams some colleges impose as a kind of unspoken filter on the hoi-polloi.

Above all, inequality blights economic growth. We are living right now through an asset boom where social housebuilding is in crisis but there is money aplenty to throw up towers of luxury apartments along the Thames. Building these towers boosts the GDP statistics, and will allow football players, crooks and despots the world over to invest in the UK property market. But it is dysfunctional for sustainable economic growth.

What would be functional is to build 200,000 council or housing association homes each year. But we don’t do it – because, on top of all the other advantages, the rich have one more. They have a disproportional influence on policymaking. They can pay for lobbyists but, above all, they can tap into the networks that have begun to congeal around wealth in this country as it becomes quasi-hereditary.

Cripps makes a poor role model for the modern chancellor. An austere christian moralist, he seemed to revel in inflicting pain. He imposed rationing with zeal, not just on the moneyed classes but on the workers, whose demands for higher pay he pillories in the rediscovered speech as playing into the hands of Russia.

But both Osborne and his Labour shadow should be concerned about persistent inequality. It is, as Thomas Piketty suggests, built in to a form of capitalism where asset prices rise faster than profits, growth or wages.

Cripps, in his 1948 speech, demonstrates one principle very well. Suppressing inequality is not, in the short term, an easy sell. The rich, of course, lose income, profit and influence. To achieve a fall in the 1%’s income share in Britain would depend not, first of all, on this or that policy, but on achieving consensus on the need to do it, if possible across all parties.

Atkinson has proposed a 15-point plan to suppress inequality, at the centre of which is the idea of a “Social and Economic Council” involving employers, unions and NGOs, a living wage, a guaranteed income and the shaping of technology policy towards redistributive goals. The beauty of this is that, unlike the rest of Corbynomics (as outlined up to now), it stands a chance of achieving cross-party consensus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Quote

HSBC Whistleblower: Biggest Bank Fraud in British History Carried Out on UK Shoppers and Covered Up.

Wilson was head of debt recovery for Weightmans LLP – a national solicitors firm which acted for John Lewis – for over 25 years. However, in 2003 when John Lewis sold their accounts to HFC Bank, Wilson noticed they immediately began adding “collection charges” of 16.4% to customer store cards in arrears. These charges were illegal.

Fat finance fingers in the till again. 

RealFare

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 4 weeks later...

Barclays' no-deposit mortgage lets you borrow 5.5 times your income. A good idea?

Quote

Barclays has become the first major lender to offer zero-deposit mortgages since the collapse of Northern Rock in 2007.

And, because the bank is also prepared to lend up to a generous 5.5 times borrowers' income, its new deal puts home ownership back within reach of a large new group of would-be buyers.

The catch is that borrowers need to get parents or other family members to tie up a sum equivalent to 10pc of the property purchase price in a Barclays savings account. The cash needs to remain there for a minimum of three years.

Is it a good deal? Or a risky return to the bad old days when borrowers were egged on by banks to overborrow?

The following Q&A explains exactly how the new mortgage works, who it might suit - and why it could turn sour.

...more on link

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
On 08/04/2016 at 13:54, Xann said:

US banks are moaning that post collapse regulation is holding them back. They've asked that some of the legislation be repealed.

This US Senator takes a dull view of this and isn't taking prisoners

That's bloody brilliant, Dave. Ta.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/8/2016 at 08:54, Xann said:

US banks are moaning that post collapse regulation is holding them back. They've asked that some of the legislation be repealed.

This US Senator takes a dull view of this and isn't taking prisoners.

 

 

Did she ask for his resignation? Bread and circuses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â