Occupy London! Here we go again!

gropingmantis said:
Not exactly. I tend to think we get more back than we put in tax-wise. I mean the amount of money I have recieved through my education and healthcare and having roads and being safe and all those other good things costs waaaaaaaaaaay more than I have done or will ever contribute thorugh taxes.
Click to expand...

I have no problems with infastructure spending. That is usually required for a healthy private sector.

But bailing private business, has nothing to do with that.

Banks are to big, incompetent banks should fail, but they can't.

State is distorting capitalism.
 
UK-AL05 said:
Same thing different method. Taking shares, or creating shares involves taking value from someone else, and giving to someone else.

Same with money.
Click to expand...

Unless of course you introduce the notion that whatever you were going to do with that money (e.g. buy healthcare) the tax authority can do more efficiently due to things such as bulk purchasing and access to specialist knowledge. In which case 2+2 would equal 5.
 
[TW]Fox;20317781 said:
How is 'gold' an answer to a question asking what portion of the shareholding has been sold? :confused:
Click to expand...

Nah im just poking fun and holes in Browns logic, how the hell did he become chancellor...i mean he got it ALL wrong.

He bought high and sold low...:p
 
UK-AL05 said:
I have no problems with infastructure spending. That is usually required for a
healthy private sector.

But bailing private business, has nothing to do with that.

Banks are to big, incompetent banks should fail, but they
can't.
Click to expand...

The problem of course is that a bank, such as HBOS, is rather different to another private company, say a car company called Rover. When Rover failed, the customers lost warranty and the staff lost jobs.

The consequences of a bank that large failing were far, far higher for society as a whole, which is why the government supported it by purchasing shares.
 
Kemik said:
Unless of course you introduce the notion that whatever you were going to do with that money (e.g. buy healthcare) the tax authority can do more efficiently due to things such as bulk purchasing and access to specialist knowledge. In which case 2+2 would equal 5.
Click to expand...

hahah, I used to work for a small company that supplied the public sector. We added 30% on for government work. No idea on how to push down price, no real incentive.
 
[TW]Fox;20317800 said:
The problem of course is that a bank, such as HBOS, is rather different to another private company, say a car company called Rover. When Rover failed, the customers lost warranty and the staff lost jobs.

The consequences of a bank that large failing were far, far higher for society as a whole, which is why the government supported it by purchasing shares.
Click to expand...


Of course its why the banks are being split in half, so it doesn't go woefully wrong.
 
[TW]Fox;20317800 said:
The consequences of a bank that large failing were far, far higher for society as a whole, which is why the government supported it by purchasing shares.
Click to expand...

While I agree, the banks were too important to let fail, shouldn't that mean such a vital service should be controlled and provided for by Government so that profits are properly reinvested and unnecessary risks aren't taken? The profit motive is fine when shareholders are aware of the risks associated with the investments the company is making, but when the company itself doesn't know what it's buying then you have to question if that management should be in place and how to combat that occurring on a level that could bring such a vital company down. The only problem with a nationalised service is competition drives up efficiency, something nationalisation prevents.
 
[TW]Fox;20317800 said:
The problem of course is that a bank, such as HBOS, is rather different to another private company, say a car company called Rover. When Rover failed, the customers lost warranty and the staff lost jobs.

The consequences of a bank that large failing were far, far higher for society as a whole, which is why the government supported it by purchasing shares.
Click to expand...

Indeed. It has put us in a dodgy position. These people who have put us in a bad situation, can't get fired because they have so much real power, but they should. Instead the state, starts taxing or increasing inflation to bail them out instead.
 
UK-AL05 said:
hahah, I used to work for a small company that supplied the public sector. We added 30% on for government work. No idea on how to push down price, no real incentive.
Click to expand...

My points have always been theoretical. Not saying the Government doesn't have its flaws! They need a good slapping too.
 
[TW]Fox;20317706 said:
I think much of the reason behind these protests is that the information age has given people both the ability to organise things and the belief that they actually understand things, irrespective of whether they actually do or not.

I wonder what proportion of those on the streets right now can explain how the bank bailout process actually worked and what the net result to the taxpayer was? Not that I'm saying everyone SHOULD know these things, but if you are going to protest about something it surely makes sense to educate yourself about it first, no? It amazes me the sheer amount of people who honestly think the banks were simply given a pot of free money for splurgle on lulz.
Click to expand...

It takes year to understand and rally people to a cause not just a few months and once you are in that cause people soon realise its hard and painful and you are it for the long run. Look up Lenin, world is not at that stage yet but once credit dries up or becomes unstable, you will see figures more often.
 
Either way the OWS was justified, simply due to how broken their government is...i mean what moron hires people straight from Goldman sachs and doesn't expect it to look bull?

Their entire financial arm of politics is controlled by them.

The citibank memo doesnt make it easier either.
 
gropingmantis said:
Not exactly. I tend to think we get more back than we put in tax-wise. I mean the amount of money I have recieved through my education and healthcare and having roads and being safe and all those other good things costs waaaaaaaaaaay more than I have done or will ever contribute thorugh taxes.
Click to expand...

Just because you're not paying your fair share doesn't mean the money appears out of nowhere, it just means someone else has paid more than their fair share to balance it.
 
Kemik said:
My points have always been theoretical. Not saying the Government doesn't have its flaws! They need a good slapping too.
Click to expand...

My point does have theoretical point, government tends be less efficient. It's funds
come from the tax payer, not it's customers with no real incentive to
really conserve money for the owners.


If private business gets bailed out every time they fail that removes some
incentives coming from failure. This is happening with banks.

This is why socialism tends to fail, dodgy incentives and government intervention.
 
Last edited:
gropingmantis said:
Not exactly. I tend to think we get more back than we put in tax-wise. I mean the amount of money I have recieved through my education and healthcare and having roads and being safe and all those other good things costs waaaaaaaaaaay more than I have done or will ever contribute thorugh taxes.
Click to expand...

How is that even possible? If everyone took more than they put in then erm......

Perhaps you have got more than you've put back in or will ever put back in but that just means some other poor sap i.e. me has to pay for it.
 
UK-AL05 said:
If private business gets bailed out every time they fail that removes some
incentives. This is happening with banks.
Click to expand...

That's why the banks need to believe it's a one time thing. They won't, so the Government's only choice is to legislate the banks to the point of not being able to make risky investments with consumers' money (splitting investment arms from main banks).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom