Best Thread Keynes Vs. Hayek

[new_trader]

:!:

You either have some serious limitation of scope issues when it comes to big business, government and the symbiotic relationship between them or you are absolutely bat sh*t.

I understand fascism.

 

[Martinghoul]

It's none of my business what other people in the private sector get paid.

How is that possible? Didn't you say this?

Nick Clegg is an utter moron. Nobody in the private sector gets paid bucket loads of cash in difficult times for failing, they either get sacked or go bankrupt. It is the Government that came up with the idea of "too big to fail"

 

[new_trader]

How is that possible? Didn't you say this?

Yes, I did. FFS do you care what other people in this forum make? Do you think the Government should put a maximum amount on what people can make trading? Would it bother you if someone made 100 times what you make? I don't know what you make and I don't care.

The minimum wage laws have destroyed jobs and now the Government wants to implement some kind of maximum wage law.

 

[Pat494]

Yes, I did. FFS do you care what other people in this forum make? Do you think the Government should put a maximum amount on what people can make trading? Would it bother you if someone made 100 times what you make? I don't know what you make and I don't care.

The minimum wage laws have destroyed jobs and now the Government wants to implement some kind of maximum wage law.

If Cameron is serious about "all init togevver" then he has to set the tax on the rich to a meaningful sum i.e. Any earnings over £1m should pay at least 75% ! And before you say how unfair in so many words - let me assure you the rich have all the food they can eat, more beds than they can sleep in at 10 nights, more luxury than 90% would see in a lifetime available at any time.
Will they suffer ? Not so much, that even they would notice. A mere drop in the ocean, soon to be made up anyway

 

[new_trader]

If Cameron is serious about "all init togevver" then he has to set the tax on the rich to a meaningful sum i.e. Any earnings over £1m should pay at least 75% ! And before you say how unfair in so many words - let me assure you the rich have all the food they can eat, more beds than they can sleep in at 10 nights, more luxury than 90% would see in a lifetime available at any time.
Will they suffer ? Not so much, that even they would notice. A mere drop in the ocean, soon to be made up anyway

I would stop working once I made my £1m. You make the same mistake that all the other idiotic Marxists make about 'rich' people. I use my excess money to save and invest which HELPS the economy. You don't think rich people keep their money under a mattress do you?

 

[Atilla]

If Cameron is serious about "all init togevver" then he has to set the tax on the rich to a meaningful sum i.e. Any earnings over £1m should pay at least 75% ! And before you say how unfair in so many words - let me assure you the rich have all the food they can eat, more beds than they can sleep in at 10 nights, more luxury than 90% would see in a lifetime available at any time.
Will they suffer ? Not so much, that even they would notice. A mere drop in the ocean, soon to be made up anyway

If we can't control what Banks pay as bonuses let's tax bonuses and then use it to bail out the banks or payback the bailouts to the tax payers.

That's fair enough is it not.

If loss making Banks with short capital reserves can afford these bonuses and have lost sight of good prudence and management then they should either be sacked or reigned in. Like riding a mule. Has a mind of it's own. Will take you where it wants to go...

 

[new_trader]

If Cameron is serious about "all init togevver" then he has to set the tax on the rich to a meaningful sum i.e. Any earnings over £1m should pay at least 75% ! And before you say how unfair in so many words - let me assure you the rich have all the food they can eat, more beds than they can sleep in at 10 nights, more luxury than 90% would see in a lifetime available at any time.
Will they suffer ? Not so much, that even they would notice. A mere drop in the ocean, soon to be made up anyway

If you finally discovered a winning trading system, would you want your earning capped at £1m? Do you think anyone here would continue trading for 25p in the pound? Risking their own capital where the trader takes 100% of losses and only 25% of profits? You're crazy!

 

[new_trader]

The CRETIN keeps bringing up Banks

 

[Pat494]

I would stop working once I made my £1m. You make the same mistake that all the other idiotic Marxists make about 'rich' people. I use my excess money to save and invest which HELPS the economy. You don't think rich people keep their money under a mattress do you?

Have you ever been poor ?
Perhaps so long ago you've forgotten ?
It's NOT nice

 

[Martinghoul]

Yes, I did. FFS do you care what other people in this forum make? Do you think the Government should put a maximum amount on what people can make trading? Would it bother you if someone made 100 times what you make? I don't know what you make and I don't care.

The minimum wage laws have destroyed jobs and now the Government wants to implement some kind of maximum wage law.

No, I don't care about what other people make, as long as people abide by the rules of the game and I believe the rules of the game are fundamentally sound. Specifically, if we just stick with your blanket statement, we shouldn't really care about what Jeffrey Skilling, Madoff or RajRaj made.

This means there are three questions:
1) How do you make sure that the rules of the game are enforced?
2) How do you make sure the rules are fundamentally "sound" and "fair"?
3) How do you define "soundness" and "fairness"?

The whole point of the discussion is the formulation of the rules of the game that define the incentives. To pretend that these issues don't exist is folly.

 

[new_trader]

Have you ever been poor ?
Perhaps so long ago you've forgotten ?
It's NOT nice

This isn't about rich or poor, do you actually believe that people can only get rich by making other people poor? Capitalists can only get rich by offering a product or service that people are willing to pay for. They cannot make money from poor people for obvious reasons.

 

[new_trader]

No, I don't care about what other people make, as long as people abide by the rules of the game and I believe the rules of the game are fundamentally sound. Specifically, if we just stick with your blanket statement, we shouldn't really care about what Jeffrey Skilling, Madoff or RajRaj made.

This means there are three questions:
1) How do you make sure that the rules of the game are enforced?
2) How do you make sure the rules are fundamentally "sound" and "fair"?
3) How do you define "soundness" and "fairness"?

The whole point of the discussion is the formulation of the rules of the game that define the incentives. To pretend that these issues don't exist is folly.

Now you're distorting the argument. I always said the Government should enforce laws. They shouldn't be dictating private sector pay just because they think it is abhorrent.

 

[Martinghoul]

Now you're distorting the argument. I always said the Government should enforce laws. They shouldn't be dictating private sector pay just because they think it is abhorrent.

I am not distorting the argument, 'cause I don't think you have actually made one. Or maybe I didn't understand it.

As to laws, I think it's you now who's distorting the argument. You're OK with the Government actually enforcing laws arnd issues like fraud, misrepresentation etc. To me, levels of executive compensation that we observe today without commensurate levels of executive personal liability (sort of like what we now have in the UK for pension trustees) constitute fraud. There should be rules that align the incentives for executives in an appropriate fashion and the govt should enforce it. That's what these rules are about, rather than an attempt to dictate private sector pay because it's abhorrent.

 

[new_trader]

I am not distorting the argument, 'cause I don't think you have actually made one. Or maybe I didn't understand it.

As to laws, I think it's you now who's distorting the argument. You're OK with the Government actually enforcing laws arnd issues like fraud, misrepresentation etc. To me, levels of executive compensation that we observe today without commensurate levels of executive personal liability (sort of like what we now have in the UK for pension trustees) constitute fraud. There should be rules that align the incentives for executives in an appropriate fashion and the govt should enforce it. That's what these rules are about, rather than an attempt to dictate private sector pay because it's abhorrent.

"levels of executive compensation that we observe today"...We observe *lol* You mean the propaganda in the tabloid press? Do you think the executives at Dowding and Mills are fairly compensated? Ever heard of them before or did you have to use google?

What 'rules' are going to align incentives? Either they are doing something illegal or they aren't. That is all the Government should care about.

 

[Martinghoul]

"levels of executive compensation that we observe today"...We observe *lol* You mean the propaganda in the tabloid press? Do you think the executives at Dowding and Mills are fairly compensated? Ever heard of them before or did you have to use google?

What 'rules' are going to align incentives? Either they are doing something illegal or they aren't. That is all the Government should care about.

What propaganda? There's a lot of research, evidence and good work that has been done on the subject... I have no idea about the executives at Dowding and Mills. No, I haven't heard of the company and, yes, I did have to use google. Why is this relevant?

I don't know what rules, but ideally some degree of personal liability or executive remuneration with mandatory and extreme clawback clauses. There's a lot of possibilities. My point is that the definition of "illegal" actually changes. If sound rules can be formulated to deal with some of the principal-agent problems, I would be all for that.

 

[new_trader]

What propaganda? There's a lot of research, evidence and good work that has been done on the subject... I have no idea about the executives at Dowding and Mills. No, I haven't heard of the company and, yes, I did have to use google. Why is this relevant?

I don't know what rules, but ideally some degree of personal liability or executive remuneration with mandatory and extreme clawback clauses. There's a lot of possibilities. My point is that the definition of "illegal" actually changes. If sound rules can be formulated to deal with some of the principal-agent problems, I would be all for that.

I'm not sure what you are posting has to do with Capitalism. The Governments inability to enforce laws isn't a failure of capitalism is it?
According to the ONS, Public sector workers get paid more than their equivalents in the Private sector. Whose fault is that? Why doesn't the Government get its own house in order before demagoguing to the "tax the rich" crowd.

 

[Martinghoul]

I'm not sure what you are posting has to do with Capitalism. The Governments inability to enforce laws isn't a failure of capitalism is it?
According to the ONS, Public sector workers get paid more than their equivalents in the Private sector. Whose fault is that? Why doesn't the Government get its own house in order before demagoguing to the "tax the rich" crowd.

What I am posting has to do with a comment you have made. I am responding to it, because I disagree. It has exactly as much to do with capitalism as your original statement. Also, I am not making a point about enforcement.

I completely agree with your point re public sector pay.

 

[Pat494]

Just to get back to topic and to put it simply it seems to me that Keynsians try and spend their way out of the problem while Hayek says we should live within our means.
Unfortunately the stupid politicians have spent SO much already the first option no longer exists.

The rich will barely notice that we are in a crisis unless a Weimar situation develops. Democracy throws up such a load of useless, self serving cretins it is not that far away from reality.

Got me fingers crossed tho !!

 

[Pat494]

Surely the citizens of a country have the inalienable right to expect those in charge to run the country properly and not just for their own benefit.

That is what p*sses me off is that they hold endless meetings and never really decide much at all and the situation gets worse.

The Royal Navy used to hang their lAdmirals that under performed ! So watch out politicians. The public's capacity for foregiveness isn't endless !!

 

[Atilla]

What propaganda? There's a lot of research, evidence and good work that has been done on the subject... I have no idea about the executives at Dowding and Mills. No, I haven't heard of the company and, yes, I did have to use google. Why is this relevant?

I don't know what rules, but ideally some degree of personal liability or executive remuneration with mandatory and extreme clawback clauses. There's a lot of possibilities. My point is that the definition of "illegal" actually changes. If sound rules can be formulated to deal with some of the principal-agent problems, I would be all for that.

I hope you guys are all watching this program on RBS...

RBS - Inside the Bank That Ran Out of Money | | Radio Times


Like watching football hooligans in pin-stripe suits...