Brexit and the Consequences

[Atilla]

Well if that's all you can come back with....I win again

Here we go Mr 14 years of age I'm so freaky smart know it all.

Misappropriation of capital under socialism you say...

So explain to me how Barclays is able to distribute 50% of profits to 500 managers whilst dishing out remaining 47% to 500,000 share holders?

Or how it can justify paying one exec 200m in salary, bonus and golden handshakes, when that very exec saw share price fall over 60% and new exec has to pay redundancy and adjustment charges to undo previous exec mess ups.

Or explain how Barclays manipulates forex markets along with others.


Let me guess they aren't real capitalist organisation but crony ones. So without regulation or government how do you propose to manage such companies?

 

[dbphoenix]

In DB's socialist utopia, inherited wealth is a massive problem because not everyone has the same standard of living, ie, not everyone is living in poverty.
Hard to see why this inherited wealth thing is such a problem. It's like saying, we are going to penalise you because your parents or grandparents had the foresight to scrimp and save and defer purchasing power in order that they might have a more secure future for themselves and their dependants. It's the politics of envy and should be dismissed out of hand. Weather we like it or not, investment has to come from somewhere and it is most likely to come from those with money, who seek a return on their investment.

In a socialist state run system, what you have is misappropriation of capital, which doesn't always seek a return on investment according to free market principles. The result being that the state can and does run up massive deficits which in turn have to be financed and paid for by the tax payer.

DB will try and persuade us that we are operating under free market principles. Nothing could be further from the truth.

What we are operating under is a crony capitalist system, where lobbying for govt money (tax payers) cos govts don't have any money of their own, which they then use to subvert free market principles by means of regulation (barriers to entry) or by buying up the competition in order to maintain higher prices and in some cases, near monopolies.

There are so many inconsistencies in all this mess it would take all day to sort them out. But, for one thing, inherited wealth has nothing to do with standards of living and poverty. It has to do with the fact that inherited wealth is not earned. It is a gift. And it is not a given that that wealth will be put to good use. It can instead be used to make others' lives miserable.

And, no, I will not attempt to convince anyone that we operate under free market principles because we don't. Far from it. If anything, we operate under oligarchic principles.

Spend less time laughing and more time trying to understand what's being said.

 

[seekingTruth16]

Here we go Mr 14 years of age I'm so freaky smart know it all.

Misappropriation of capital under socialism you say...

So explain to me how Barclays is able to distribute 50% of profits to 500 managers whilst dishing out remaining 47% to 500,000 share holders?

Or how it can justify paying one exec 200m in salary, bonus and golden handshakes, when that very exec saw share price fall over 60% and new exec has to pay redundancy and adjustment charges to undo previous exec mess ups.

Or explain how Barclays manipulates forex markets along with others.


Let me guess they aren't real capitalist organisation but crony ones. So without regulation or government how do you propose to manage such companies?

Can you support the bold above?

 

[Atilla]

Can you support the bold above?

https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-fines-barclays-£284432000-forex-failings

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has imposed a financial penalty of £284,432,000 on Barclays Bank Plc (Barclays) for failing to control business practices in its foreign exchange (FX) business in London. This is the largest financial penalty ever imposed by the FCA, or its predecessor the Financial Services Authority (FSA).

 

[seekingTruth16]

https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-fines-barclays-£284432000-forex-failings

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has imposed a financial penalty of £284,432,000 on Barclays Bank Plc (Barclays) for failing to control business practices in its foreign exchange (FX) business in London. This is the largest financial penalty ever imposed by the FCA, or its predecessor the Financial Services Authority (FSA).

This is old news, and it is 'attempting to manipulate'. You said they were doing it, as in current. I'm interested. Has a news story broken I haven't seen?

Also is the person in charge then when they did it, they same one you're talking about getting the massive pay?

 

[dbphoenix]

To Q2, I don't understand your meaning.

Tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, tax breaks which do nothing for the public good, wages that can be nearly 400 times the average wage of the typical worker, and so forth.

 

[tomorton]

Are you unhappy with your lot in life, or are you happy, but just begrudge that others get some handouts? Why does it matter to you?

I've paid tax towards the hand-outs. And clearly a percentage of my tax goes to people who are well off. Its no business of government to take money from anyone in order to give it to a class they arbitrarily decide to favour. On top of which, the more money they give to people who don't need it, the less they have to give to people or services that do.

 

[Atilla]

This is old news, and it is 'attempting to manipulate'. You said they were doing it, as in current. I'm interested. Has a news story broken I haven't seen?

Also is the person in charge then when they did it, they same one you're talking about getting the massive pay?

That was about Bob Diamond in total he earned 200m from Barclays for bringing share price down and trying to convert it to an international investment bank by buying Lehman Brothers assets along with few others. http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a6295/barclays-deal-of-the-century-1009/ This was 2008.

Exclusive: Barclays' board signed off on a huge restructuring This was 2015.


Very costly chop and change. Shareholders get shafted and management have taken the cream for naff performance.


Two points lead on from all this.

1. Markets are not pure as collusion takes place. Increasingly so among large corporations

2. Market regulation for efficient and fair markets is essential. Free market capitalist utopia is text book theory only. Has no place in practice

However, quite a few people will sprout the usual noise about how fantastic it all is.

 

[Atilla]

I've paid tax towards the hand-outs. And clearly a percentage of my tax goes to people who are well off. Its no business of government to take money from anyone in order to give it to a class they arbitrarily decide to favour. On top of which, the more money they give to people who don't need it, the less they have to give to people or services that do.

You mean like Nurses, Teachers and Policemen asking them to do more with less by paying management vast salaries to find cost savings.

Time to wake up I'm afraid.

Now government is cutting back on Nursing burseries thinking that'll somehow increase nursing numbers.

 

[tomorton]

Tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, tax breaks which do nothing for the public good, wages that can be nearly 400 times the average wage of the typical worker, and so forth.

These are different issues. So, do I support -

Tax cuts for the rich? - No. As much tax collection as possible should be via income tax, and this should be as progressive as possible. The simpler the tax system, the harder it is to avoid tax liability.

Deregulation? - Yes, but not to the point of damage to the public good.

Tax breaks which do nothing for the public good? - No, I can't think of a good word to say about these.

Wages that can be nearly 400 times the average wage of the typical worker? - As a worker I wouldn't care less. The more someone earns, the more tax they pay, and a progressive income tax regime would ensure the best outcome for society. If I was a shareholder of course, I would question whether anyone deserved that level of pay, but that's only because I would wish to see increased profitability of the company and increase of my dividend.

And so forth? - Forth what?

 

[mike.]

Election fever...its all kickin off on T2W....:clap: :clap:

 

[tomorton]

You mean like Nurses, Teachers and Policemen asking them to do more with less by paying management vast salaries to find cost savings.

Time to wake up I'm afraid.

Now government is cutting back on Nursing burseries thinking that'll somehow increase nursing numbers.

State benefits paid out to people who don't need them will not help public sector workers get a fair wage.

 

[Atilla]

State benefits paid out to people who don't need them will not help public sector workers get a fair wage.

Hmmm maybe you are right but would you say nurses or policeman visiting food banks is because they are;

a) free loaders who don't want to pay supermarket prices
b) don't have enough money to meet rent and living expenses
c) just bad at managing their finances

 

[dbphoenix]

These are different issues. So, do I support -

Tax cuts for the rich? - No. As much tax collection as possible should be via income tax, and this should be as progressive as possible. The simpler the tax system, the harder it is to avoid tax liability.

Deregulation? - Yes, but not to the point of damage to the public good.

Tax breaks which do nothing for the public good? - No, I can't think of a good word to say about these.

Wages that can be nearly 400 times the average wage of the typical worker? - As a worker I wouldn't care less. The more someone earns, the more tax they pay, and a progressive income tax regime would ensure the best outcome for society. If I was a shareholder of course, I would question whether anyone deserved that level of pay, but that's only because I would wish to see increased profitability of the company and increase of my dividend.

And so forth? - Forth what?

It's all the same issue: welfare for the rich. As for "the more someone earns, the more tax they pay", hardly. Some pay no tax at all because of the influence they as a class have over tax law.

Then there is the question of subsidies. Subsidies for pharmaceutical companies, for oil&gas companies, for agribusiness, for airlines, all of which are the antithesis of capitalism, i.e., if you can't compete, fold up your tent and pursue some other line of work.

 

[counter_violent]

There are so many inconsistencies in all this mess it would take all day to sort them out. But, for one thing, inherited wealth has nothing to do with standards of living and poverty. It has to do with the fact that inherited wealth is not earned. It is a gift. And it is not a given that that wealth will be put to good use. It can instead be used to make others' lives miserable.

And, no, I will not attempt to convince anyone that we operate under free market principles because we don't. Far from it. If anything, we operate under oligarchic principles.

Spend less time laughing and more time trying to understand what's being said.

So what business is it of yours what happens to inherited wealth and weather or not it is a gift or indeed not earned.

It is not your money and it has nothing to do with you. It is not the govts money either so has nothing to do with them

 

[dbphoenix]

So what business is it of yours what happens to inherited wealth and weather or not it is a gift or indeed not earned.

It is not your money and it has nothing to do with you. It is not the govts money either so has nothing to do with them

Nor is it the money of the legatee, except by law, which makes it another form of welfare for the rich.

 

[counter_violent]

Here we go Mr 14 years of age I'm so freaky smart know it all.

Misappropriation of capital under socialism you say...

So explain to me how Barclays is able to distribute 50% of profits to 500 managers whilst dishing out remaining 47% to 500,000 share holders?

Or how it can justify paying one exec 200m in salary, bonus and golden handshakes, when that very exec saw share price fall over 60% and new exec has to pay redundancy and adjustment charges to undo previous exec mess ups.

Or explain how Barclays manipulates forex markets along with others.


Let me guess they aren't real capitalist organisation but crony ones. So without regulation or government how do you propose to manage such companies?

Perhaps the shareholders should be asking those questions including the govt who have had a stake on our behalf.

Banks like Barclays operate in a cartel. You tell me where the competition is and why it is so difficult for smaller operators to get into the market.

You can't refute my barriers to entry argument no matter how hard you try.
Thanks for making my case. I don't need to bother.

 

[counter_violent]

Nor is it the money of the legatee, except by law, which makes it another form of welfare for the rich.

The politics of envy laid bare.

 

[counter_violent]

State benefits paid out to people who don't need them will not help public sector workers get a fair wage.

Neither will mass uncontrolled immigration, which has the effect of keeping workers wages low and crony corporates profits high.

 

[Atilla]

Perhaps the shareholders should be asking those questions including the govt who have had a stake on our behalf.

Banks like Barclays operate in a cartel. You tell me where the competition is and why it is so difficult for smaller operators to get into the market.

You can't refute my barriers to entry argument no matter how hard you try.
Thanks for making my case. I don't need to bother.

You are side stepping main issues...

Pure freee competitive markets in theory and assumptions only.

Markets need regulation and conflict resolution.


Keep hanging your capitalist drum but you don't understand issues. Small gov and free markets brings war and anarchy always.

Rule of law and regulation brings order and system which constantly needs to be policed.