Analyst on R5L’s wake up to money - tracking a basket of essential goods says price difference between Morrissons and Aldi is now 40%. Explained by Morrisons having to service a gigantic debt.
Shop at Aldi, people.
Good morning
I heard that report as well and it is astonishing that Morrisons apparently have a 7 billion debt
Shop anywhere but Morrisons would be the message
5live also discussed Kwarteng's proposal to abolish city bonuses and it really does make you wonder if the conservative party have lost all it's instincts to govern
It may be the right thing from a business sense, but the optics are shocking and hands yet another gift to labour
It is the right thing from city workers sense. It is a bad thing for shareholders and really bad for government and taxpayers who will eventually have to fund another bailout with years of austerity.
I'm curious about this idea that bankers bonuses caused the subprime mortgage crisis.
I am even more curious about the idea that there will ever be another bank bailout.
Extreme bankers bonuses create incentives for bankers to gamble with the banks money. If they win, fantastic, if they lose its not their money and as long as you can talk the talk and know some of the right people, it is still easy to get another job.
That culture feeds through to the banks to gamble, notionally with their money, but knowing they have a government funded back stop as they are too big to fail.
Take away the controls and regulation and sooner or later we shall be back to bail outs.
Well, it's too bad the Labour government didn't do something about it then...
Of course. Not sure why you think that is relevant when they have not been in power for a long time and it is the current governments policies that will matter.
Well, the view of Labour supporters on the GFC is "it started in America".
Analyst on R5L’s wake up to money - tracking a basket of essential goods says price difference between Morrissons and Aldi is now 40%. Explained by Morrisons having to service a gigantic debt.
Shop at Aldi, people.
Good morning
I heard that report as well and it is astonishing that Morrisons apparently have a 7 billion debt
Shop anywhere but Morrisons would be the message
5live also discussed Kwarteng's proposal to abolish city bonuses and it really does make you wonder if the conservative party have lost all it's instincts to govern
It may be the right thing from a business sense, but the optics are shocking and hands yet another gift to labour
It is the right thing from city workers sense. It is a bad thing for shareholders and really bad for government and taxpayers who will eventually have to fund another bailout with years of austerity.
I'm curious about this idea that bankers bonuses caused the subprime mortgage crisis.
I am even more curious about the idea that there will ever be another bank bailout.
Extreme bankers bonuses create incentives for bankers to gamble with the banks money. If they win, fantastic, if they lose its not their money and as long as you can talk the talk and know some of the right people, it is still easy to get another job.
That culture feeds through to the banks to gamble, notionally with their money, but knowing they have a government funded back stop as they are too big to fail.
Take away the controls and regulation and sooner or later we shall be back to bail outs.
Well, it's too bad the Labour government didn't do something about it then...
Of course. Not sure why you think that is relevant when they have not been in power for a long time and it is the current governments policies that will matter.
Well, the view of Labour supporters on the GFC is "it started in America".
That's not the view of Labour supporters, it is a statement of fact.
I am so looking forward to Jacob Rees Mogg declaring the end to the cap on bankers' bonuses as a big Brexit benefit and explaining why making the very rich even richer benefits everyone. It will be spectacular.
If ever there was a case of feathering his own nest!
And Good Morning one and all; bit brief this morning as the chap doing the wet room for us is, every so often, drilling. Very noisily! And of course it makes dictating to the computer difficult.
Analyst on R5L’s wake up to money - tracking a basket of essential goods says price difference between Morrissons and Aldi is now 40%. Explained by Morrisons having to service a gigantic debt.
Shop at Aldi, people.
Good morning
I heard that report as well and it is astonishing that Morrisons apparently have a 7 billion debt
Shop anywhere but Morrisons would be the message
5live also discussed Kwarteng's proposal to abolish city bonuses and it really does make you wonder if the conservative party have lost all it's instincts to govern
It may be the right thing from a business sense, but the optics are shocking and hands yet another gift to labour
It is the right thing from city workers sense. It is a bad thing for shareholders and really bad for government and taxpayers who will eventually have to fund another bailout with years of austerity.
I'm curious about this idea that bankers bonuses caused the subprime mortgage crisis.
I am even more curious about the idea that there will ever be another bank bailout.
Extreme bankers bonuses create incentives for bankers to gamble with the banks money. If they win, fantastic, if they lose its not their money and as long as you can talk the talk and know some of the right people, it is still easy to get another job.
That culture feeds through to the banks to gamble, notionally with their money, but knowing they have a government funded back stop as they are too big to fail.
Take away the controls and regulation and sooner or later we shall be back to bail outs.
Well, it's too bad the Labour government didn't do something about it then...
Of course. Not sure why you think that is relevant when they have not been in power for a long time and it is the current governments policies that will matter.
Well, the view of Labour supporters on the GFC is "it started in America".
That's not the view of Labour supporters, it is a statement of fact.
Right, so what the fuck have bankers bonuses here got to to with it?
I am so looking forward to Jacob Rees Mogg declaring the end to the cap on bankers' bonuses as a big Brexit benefit and explaining why making the very rich even richer benefits everyone. It will be spectacular.
Labour need to be careful here. This will be wrapped up in bullshit aspiration rhetoric, despite the gap between rich and poor growing ever wider and harder to bridge.
Something that the sainted Margaret understood very well. It's why people buy lottery tickets. They might be shelf-stacking at Tesco but want a system whereby they can make undreamed of wealth by (theoretically, one day) moving to London and becoming a "banker".
I'm sure this has been said before, but this truly is the wisdom of crowds in action. Yes, we have pomp and pageantry, but left almost to themselves, the British have come up with the perfect way of commemorating the Queen: a massive queue. A really, really big one. A well organised, polite one. With cups of tea and toilet facilities. I wouldn't queue for 30 hours to see the Queen. But I'd queue to see the queue.
For the religious/superstitious inclined we've had the rainbow at Buck Palace around the time of the announcement of death, the meteor on the first night of lying in state in London. What's next for the funeral? Any solar eclipses scheduled? Or are we looking at rain of frogs* or something?
*Before TSE or someone else mentions it, I'm not meaning cross-channel visitors to the funeral
I am so looking forward to Jacob Rees Mogg declaring the end to the cap on bankers' bonuses as a big Brexit benefit and explaining why making the very rich even richer benefits everyone. It will be spectacular.
If ever there was a case of feathering his own nest!
And Good Morning one and all; bit brief this morning as the chap doing the wet room for us is, every so often, drilling. Very noisily! And of course it makes dictating to the computer difficult.
Sympathies. Maybe you should let the computer do what it wants, rather than dictating to it?
Meanwhile I'd like to see the Chris Kaba bodycam footage.
There is that, and the testimony of those involved - it should be like VAR for the IOPC and they should have a judgement within days, surely.
The Police Federation are apoplectic with rage at the suspension. A quick judgement and reinstatement would contain their anger.
Am I missing something? I thought it was standard practice to suspend any officer involved in a shooting till it had been investigated*, without prejudice to the offier in question.
*Edit: at least internally.
I think it is normally put on restricted duties - non-firearms work.
This is an actual suspension - go home etc.
The repeated threats over the years to down tools by the armed police over investigations led T May, when she was Home Sec to change the firearms thing from being a voluntary duty to requiring officers to formally sign up for it. Which means that if they down tools, it is a disciplinary issue.
I can imagine shooting the Commissioner would be a disciplinary issue, whatever the benefit to the country.
Oh sorry, not 'down tools' in that sense?
Some years ago, I was at a social thing. A policeman very proudly announced, in conversation, that all the firearms offices would quit if one of them was prosecuted.
He was surprised that the reaction of everyone else in the conversation was “they must all be guilty, then”.
CRIII having a day of ‘quiet contemplation’ today. Why can’t they just say the poor old bugger needs a rest to avoid future tantrums (or words to that effect) instead of that pompousese?
I think quiet contemplation would probably sum up quite well what he will be doing; he's probably not had a moment to think about it all since it happened.
He will hardly be donning jeans and a t-shirt and heading over to Camden Market.
Who knows, he and Cams may be jitterbugging round the drawing room, but the need to have everything portentously presented to the plebs is tedious - ‘He’s still doing his duty in profound and mysterious ways u kno!’
For the religious/superstitious inclined we've had the rainbow at Buck Palace around the time of the announcement of death, the meteor on the first night of lying in state in London. What's next for the funeral? Any solar eclipses scheduled? Or are we looking at rain of frogs* or something?
*Before TSE or someone else mentions it, I'm not meaning cross-channel visitors to the funeral
Does Monarchism correlate with irrational superstition?
For the religious/superstitious inclined we've had the rainbow at Buck Palace around the time of the announcement of death, the meteor on the first night of lying in state in London. What's next for the funeral? Any solar eclipses scheduled? Or are we looking at rain of frogs* or something?
*Before TSE or someone else mentions it, I'm not meaning cross-channel visitors to the funeral
Happened in 1066 when there was a royal death and a comet. Led to an over 300 year reign of frogs.
Analyst on R5L’s wake up to money - tracking a basket of essential goods says price difference between Morrissons and Aldi is now 40%. Explained by Morrisons having to service a gigantic debt.
Shop at Aldi, people.
Good morning
I heard that report as well and it is astonishing that Morrisons apparently have a 7 billion debt
Shop anywhere but Morrisons would be the message
5live also discussed Kwarteng's proposal to abolish city bonuses and it really does make you wonder if the conservative party have lost all it's instincts to govern
It may be the right thing from a business sense, but the optics are shocking and hands yet another gift to labour
It is the right thing from city workers sense. It is a bad thing for shareholders and really bad for government and taxpayers who will eventually have to fund another bailout with years of austerity.
I'm curious about this idea that bankers bonuses caused the subprime mortgage crisis.
I am even more curious about the idea that there will ever be another bank bailout.
Extreme bankers bonuses create incentives for bankers to gamble with the banks money. If they win, fantastic, if they lose its not their money and as long as you can talk the talk and know some of the right people, it is still easy to get another job.
That culture feeds through to the banks to gamble, notionally with their money, but knowing they have a government funded back stop as they are too big to fail.
Take away the controls and regulation and sooner or later we shall be back to bail outs.
Well, it's too bad the Labour government didn't do something about it then...
Of course. Not sure why you think that is relevant when they have not been in power for a long time and it is the current governments policies that will matter.
Well, the view of Labour supporters on the GFC is "it started in America".
That's not the view of Labour supporters, it is a statement of fact.
Right, so what the fuck have bankers bonuses here got to to with it?
Excessive risk taking in the US caused the crisis. Excessive risk taking by banks in the UK made it worse here (hence the costly RBS bailout). Hence the need to reduce incentives for excessive risk taking here. FWIW I am not that sold on the idea that the bonus cap achieves that, since finance is full of smart chaps who can figure out how to circumvent it. It might help a bit, and is perhaps a useful signal to bankers that they shouldn't take the piss. I do think that abolishing the bonus cap is a powerful political demonstration of whose side this government is on.
My understanding is that the cap on bankers' bonuses was imposed by the EU. So, lifting that cap means that the government can at last demonstrate one very clear benefit of Brexit as the UK goes it alone.
We should all celebrate: Brexit has a point, after all. Vote Brexit, make bankers richer. Yay.
That was identified by Remainers, rightly or wrongly, as a key motivation for Brexit IIRC even before the referendum, wasn't it? Also the impending EU clampdown on tax havens.
Revenues in some parts of the banking business are down 80-90% this year.
Historically you had low fixed costs (an MD at a broking firm might have a salary of £100k and earn up to £750k as a bonus. So you are ok in a horrible year.
Now the salaries are £300k and the bonuses capped at £600k. The total compensation is about the same - but in a bad year the banks lose pots of money
Financial institutions know very well that some years are financially bad years. Banks should be planning their business so that they can cope with two bad years or one terrible year without it causing much pain.
I am so looking forward to Jacob Rees Mogg declaring the end to the cap on bankers' bonuses as a big Brexit benefit and explaining why making the very rich even richer benefits everyone. It will be spectacular.
If people get paid more, the Treasury gets more taxes, which cuts the deficit, which allows more funding on the NHS or for Teachers or other priorities.
My understanding is that the cap on bankers' bonuses was imposed by the EU. So, lifting that cap means that the government can at last demonstrate one very clear benefit of Brexit as the UK goes it alone.
We should all celebrate: Brexit has a point, after all. Vote Brexit, make bankers richer. Yay.
That was identified by Remainers, rightly or wrongly, as a key motivation for Brexit IIRC even before the referendum, wasn't it? Also the impending EU clampdown on tax havens.
Revenues in some parts of the banking business are down 80-90% this year.
Historically you had low fixed costs (an MD at a broking firm might have a salary of £100k and earn up to £750k as a bonus. So you are ok in a horrible year.
Now the salaries are £300k and the bonuses capped at £600k. The total compensation is about the same - but in a bad year the banks lose pots of money
My understanding is that the cap on bankers' bonuses was imposed by the EU. So, lifting that cap means that the government can at last demonstrate one very clear benefit of Brexit as the UK goes it alone.
We should all celebrate: Brexit has a point, after all. Vote Brexit, make bankers richer. Yay.
That was identified by Remainers, rightly or wrongly, as a key motivation for Brexit IIRC even before the referendum, wasn't it? Also the impending EU clampdown on tax havens.
Revenues in some parts of the banking business are down 80-90% this year.
Historically you had low fixed costs (an MD at a broking firm might have a salary of £100k and earn up to £750k as a bonus. So you are ok in a horrible year.
Now the salaries are £300k and the bonuses capped at £600k. The total compensation is about the same - but in a bad year the banks lose pots of money
My heart bleeds. Poor bankers.
Not often you meet poor bankers. You have rich ones, very rich ones and filthy rich ones.
Meanwhile I'd like to see the Chris Kaba bodycam footage.
There is that, and the testimony of those involved - it should be like VAR for the IOPC and they should have a judgement within days, surely.
The Police Federation are apoplectic with rage at the suspension. A quick judgement and reinstatement would contain their anger.
Am I missing something? I thought it was standard practice to suspend any officer involved in a shooting till it had been investigated*, without prejudice to the offier in question.
*Edit: at least internally.
I think it is normally put on restricted duties - non-firearms work.
This is an actual suspension - go home etc.
The repeated threats over the years to down tools by the armed police over investigations led T May, when she was Home Sec to change the firearms thing from being a voluntary duty to requiring officers to formally sign up for it. Which means that if they down tools, it is a disciplinary issue.
I can imagine shooting the Commissioner would be a disciplinary issue, whatever the benefit to the country.
Oh sorry, not 'down tools' in that sense?
Some years ago, I was at a social thing. A policeman very proudly announced, in conversation, that all the firearms offices would quit if one of them was prosecuted.
He was surprised that the reaction of everyone else in the conversation was “they must all be guilty, then”.
I think everyone gets the story here - vehicle pinged for firearms offences, AFOs dispatched not knowing what they will find, hard stop, chaos, firearm(s) discharged, no non-police firearms found at the scene.
Still plenty of blurred round the edges stuff here.
Thing is, we also have bodycam footage, apparently, and that should assist IOPC greatly. Although if I were a betting man (I am) it might be that Kaba is out of shot for critical moments of the incident and it will come down to IOPC having to make a judgement call.
Analyst on R5L’s wake up to money - tracking a basket of essential goods says price difference between Morrissons and Aldi is now 40%. Explained by Morrisons having to service a gigantic debt.
Shop at Aldi, people.
Good morning
I heard that report as well and it is astonishing that Morrisons apparently have a 7 billion debt
Shop anywhere but Morrisons would be the message
5live also discussed Kwarteng's proposal to abolish city bonuses and it really does make you wonder if the conservative party have lost all it's instincts to govern
It may be the right thing from a business sense, but the optics are shocking and hands yet another gift to labour
It is the right thing from city workers sense. It is a bad thing for shareholders and really bad for government and taxpayers who will eventually have to fund another bailout with years of austerity.
I'm curious about this idea that bankers bonuses caused the subprime mortgage crisis.
I am even more curious about the idea that there will ever be another bank bailout.
Extreme bankers bonuses create incentives for bankers to gamble with the banks money. If they win, fantastic, if they lose its not their money and as long as you can talk the talk and know some of the right people, it is still easy to get another job.
That culture feeds through to the banks to gamble, notionally with their money, but knowing they have a government funded back stop as they are too big to fail.
Take away the controls and regulation and sooner or later we shall be back to bail outs.
Well, it's too bad the Labour government didn't do something about it then...
Of course. Not sure why you think that is relevant when they have not been in power for a long time and it is the current governments policies that will matter.
Well, the view of Labour supporters on the GFC is "it started in America".
That's not the view of Labour supporters, it is a statement of fact.
The global [key word, there] financial crisis started in America. Britain was very poorly placed to weather it because Gordon Brown had spent the previous 6 years [after an admirable initial period of restraint] pissing money up the wall, spending more than he raked in even during times of relative financial health. Personally I couldn't give a fig how big bankers' bonuses are. I don't care at all about the optics, I care about the gap between what we spend and what we earn. That should be the #1 issue for a chancellor of the exchequer to worry about. If this measure narrows that gap (and I am at best agnostic about whether it will) it should be welcomed.
My understanding is that the cap on bankers' bonuses was imposed by the EU. So, lifting that cap means that the government can at last demonstrate one very clear benefit of Brexit as the UK goes it alone.
We should all celebrate: Brexit has a point, after all. Vote Brexit, make bankers richer. Yay.
That was always what Brexit was about, as I have said from the start. Deregulation, unchain the City, make the rich richer. That they got a load of working class people shafted by austerity to vote for it would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
Indeed, this has always been the obvious timeline for anyone willing to spend more than five minutes to look, despite the timidity of the BBC and others to explore this, compared to the 1990's.
Vote Leave was the classic elite astroturfing exercise, because it grew straight out the meeting of Lord Leach, Matthew Elliott and Hannan in 2012, with the plutocratic interests of Business for Britain, and money coming in from Crispin Odey. Unlike the fond imaginings, it didn't grow organically out of a great cry for independence across the kingdom. The only really genuine, mass-popular interaction with this, in 2012-2015, was Farage's clever merging of EU immigration with the refugee crisis.
I am so looking forward to Jacob Rees Mogg declaring the end to the cap on bankers' bonuses as a big Brexit benefit and explaining why making the very rich even richer benefits everyone. It will be spectacular.
If people get paid more, the Treasury gets more taxes, which cuts the deficit, which allows more funding on the NHS or for Teachers or other priorities.
It isn't rocket science.
But it isn't 'people' in general getting paid more in this instance. It's bankers, who are already paid excessively.
Let's double the pay of the many thousands of care workers instead to raise more taxes.
The root causes of the global financial crash were as much behavioural as structural - and prominent among them was the bank bonus culture. There's not a shred of doubt about this.
I am so looking forward to Jacob Rees Mogg declaring the end to the cap on bankers' bonuses as a big Brexit benefit and explaining why making the very rich even richer benefits everyone. It will be spectacular.
If people get paid more, the Treasury gets more taxes, which cuts the deficit, which allows more funding on the NHS or for Teachers or other priorities.
It isn't rocket science.
But it isn't 'people' in general getting paid more in this instance. It's bankers, who are already paid excessively.
Let's double the pay of the many thousands of care workers instead to raise more taxes.
The many thousands of care workers could easily double their pay if they decided to become bankers.
Quick recap of the big UK fireball last night: – videos show it lasted at least ~20s. – several eyewitnesses reported (via AMS system) booms/rumbles in the minute or so after. – not clear yet whether it was natural or debris (@UKMeteorNetwork experts working on that now).
Somebody posted on here that they had seen a meteor. I thought at the time that's it was an odd thing to post, given you van see a meteor in the country on most clear nights if you wait a while.
Now I understand why he/she was moved to post about it. A memorable sight, no doubt.
I am so looking forward to Jacob Rees Mogg declaring the end to the cap on bankers' bonuses as a big Brexit benefit and explaining why making the very rich even richer benefits everyone. It will be spectacular.
If people get paid more, the Treasury gets more taxes, which cuts the deficit, which allows more funding on the NHS or for Teachers or other priorities.
It isn't rocket science.
But it isn't 'people' in general getting paid more in this instance. It's bankers, who are already paid excessively.
Let's double the pay of the many thousands of care workers instead to raise more taxes.
But the bankers get their money from the private sector, so it is pure benefit to the Treasury when private sector wages go up.
How are you going to source the money for paying double to care workers? By doubling private sector care fees, or by giving more tax revenue to the Care sector, which is where a lot of the money comes from?
You can't realistically increase tax revenues by spending more taxes. You can increase tax revenues by taking the brakes off the private sector so that the private sector generates more taxes for the public sector to use.
I am so looking forward to Jacob Rees Mogg declaring the end to the cap on bankers' bonuses as a big Brexit benefit and explaining why making the very rich even richer benefits everyone. It will be spectacular.
If people get paid more, the Treasury gets more taxes, which cuts the deficit, which allows more funding on the NHS or for Teachers or other priorities.
It isn't rocket science.
But it isn't 'people' in general getting paid more in this instance. It's bankers, who are already paid excessively.
Let's double the pay of the many thousands of care workers instead to raise more taxes.
The many thousands of care workers could easily double their pay if they decided to become bankers.
Quick recap of the big UK fireball last night: – videos show it lasted at least ~20s. – several eyewitnesses reported (via AMS system) booms/rumbles in the minute or so after. – not clear yet whether it was natural or debris (@UKMeteorNetwork experts working on that now).
Somebody posted on here that they had seen a meteor. I thought at the time that's it was an odd thing to post, given you van see a meteor in the country on most clear nights if you wait a while.
Now I understand why he/she was moved to post about it. A memorable sight, no doubt.
That was me…. We live in a converted barn with a big window where the barn door used to be… sitting watching TV (Buzzcocks on catch up) we saw this brilliant, white ball of light with a tail appear from the south (window looks north west) and travel on an almost flat trajectory… leaped up to the window and watched it shoot across the Lake District and start to break up… before falling away and turning dark red, by now we were seeing it from behind…
The root causes of the global financial crash were as much behavioural as structural - and prominent among them was the bank bonus culture. There's not a shred of doubt about this.
You are right and wrong.
As you well know, it was about people creating products that no one really understood, most notably those who bought them. It was then the big revelatory lesson learned that it turns out that assets are correlated and you can't diversify your risk.
To say it was "bankers bonuses" is not really getting to the nub of the problem. It was as you say behavioural and went far deeper than the simple construct of bankers bonuses whereas it was the entire corpus of investment banking and how it earns its income.
Analyst on R5L’s wake up to money - tracking a basket of essential goods says price difference between Morrissons and Aldi is now 40%. Explained by Morrisons having to service a gigantic debt.
Shop at Aldi, people.
Good morning
I heard that report as well and it is astonishing that Morrisons apparently have a 7 billion debt
Shop anywhere but Morrisons would be the message
5live also discussed Kwarteng's proposal to abolish city bonuses and it really does make you wonder if the conservative party have lost all it's instincts to govern
It may be the right thing from a business sense, but the optics are shocking and hands yet another gift to labour
It is the right thing from city workers sense. It is a bad thing for shareholders and really bad for government and taxpayers who will eventually have to fund another bailout with years of austerity.
I'm curious about this idea that bankers bonuses caused the subprime mortgage crisis.
I am even more curious about the idea that there will ever be another bank bailout.
Extreme bankers bonuses create incentives for bankers to gamble with the banks money. If they win, fantastic, if they lose its not their money and as long as you can talk the talk and know some of the right people, it is still easy to get another job.
That culture feeds through to the banks to gamble, notionally with their money, but knowing they have a government funded back stop as they are too big to fail.
Take away the controls and regulation and sooner or later we shall be back to bail outs.
Well, it's too bad the Labour government didn't do something about it then...
Of course. Not sure why you think that is relevant when they have not been in power for a long time and it is the current governments policies that will matter.
Well, the view of Labour supporters on the GFC is "it started in America".
That's not the view of Labour supporters, it is a statement of fact.
The global [key word, there] financial crisis started in America. Britain was very poorly placed to weather it because Gordon Brown had spent the previous 6 years [after an admirable initial period of restraint] pissing money up the wall, spending more than he raked in even during times of relative financial health. Personally I couldn't give a fig how big bankers' bonuses are. I don't care at all about the optics, I care about the gap between what we spend and what we earn. That should be the #1 issue for a chancellor of the exchequer to worry about. If this measure narrows that gap (and I am at best agnostic about whether it will) it should be welcomed.
Britain was hit badly because we have a large globally exposed financial sector and one of our biggest banks was in the midst of an ill-advised over-leveraged buying spree at the top of the market. Running a structural deficit of 4% of GDP in 2007 compared to a G7 average of 3% is unlikely to have been a significant factor in explaining why we were hit worse than others, no matter how much people want it to be Gordon Brown's fault.
I am so looking forward to Jacob Rees Mogg declaring the end to the cap on bankers' bonuses as a big Brexit benefit and explaining why making the very rich even richer benefits everyone. It will be spectacular.
If people get paid more, the Treasury gets more taxes, which cuts the deficit, which allows more funding on the NHS or for Teachers or other priorities.
It isn't rocket science.
But it isn't 'people' in general getting paid more in this instance. It's bankers, who are already paid excessively.
Let's double the pay of the many thousands of care workers instead to raise more taxes.
The many thousands of care workers could easily double their pay if they decided to become bankers.
The root causes of the global financial crash were as much behavioural as structural - and prominent among them was the bank bonus culture. There's not a shred of doubt about this.
There were other factors but I think that’s right. In this debate, people also have to remember that a lot of what was done to “banker’s bonuses” was about ensuring they were released in different forms over a longer period, to focus minds on at least the medium term impact of decisions:
In a sector which we now know is underwritten my government in the end, by necessity, I think that has to be right:
I'm sure this has been said before, but this truly is the wisdom of crowds in action. Yes, we have pomp and pageantry, but left almost to themselves, the British have come up with the perfect way of commemorating the Queen: a massive queue. A really, really big one. A well organised, polite one. With cups of tea and toilet facilities. I wouldn't queue for 30 hours to see the Queen. But I'd queue to see the queue.
Then somebody would have to queue, to see the queue of people queueing to see the queue.
And that way lies either madness, or a very British system of reducing waiting times.
I am so looking forward to Jacob Rees Mogg declaring the end to the cap on bankers' bonuses as a big Brexit benefit and explaining why making the very rich even richer benefits everyone. It will be spectacular.
If people get paid more, the Treasury gets more taxes, which cuts the deficit, which allows more funding on the NHS or for Teachers or other priorities.
It isn't rocket science.
But it isn't 'people' in general getting paid more in this instance. It's bankers, who are already paid excessively.
Let's double the pay of the many thousands of care workers instead to raise more taxes.
The many thousands of care workers could easily double their pay if they decided to become bankers.
Easily? That many vacancies for bankers?
Some of the bankers I have known have been pretty vacant.
I am so looking forward to Jacob Rees Mogg declaring the end to the cap on bankers' bonuses as a big Brexit benefit and explaining why making the very rich even richer benefits everyone. It will be spectacular.
If people get paid more, the Treasury gets more taxes, which cuts the deficit, which allows more funding on the NHS or for Teachers or other priorities.
It isn't rocket science.
But it isn't 'people' in general getting paid more in this instance. It's bankers, who are already paid excessively.
Let's double the pay of the many thousands of care workers instead to raise more taxes.
The many thousands of care workers could easily double their pay if they decided to become bankers.
Easily? That many vacancies for bankers?
Some of the bankers I have known have been pretty vacant.
you could go for 'like a toilet with a broken flush.
For the religious/superstitious inclined we've had the rainbow at Buck Palace around the time of the announcement of death, the meteor on the first night of lying in state in London. What's next for the funeral? Any solar eclipses scheduled? Or are we looking at rain of frogs* or something?
*Before TSE or someone else mentions it, I'm not meaning cross-channel visitors to the funeral
Happened in 1066 when there was a royal death and a comet. Led to an over 300 year reign of frogs.
Disagree - Until Dick they were basically French, but John lacked a great connection to France and I think Harry 3 was effectively English
For the religious/superstitious inclined we've had the rainbow at Buck Palace around the time of the announcement of death, the meteor on the first night of lying in state in London. What's next for the funeral? Any solar eclipses scheduled? Or are we looking at rain of frogs* or something?
*Before TSE or someone else mentions it, I'm not meaning cross-channel visitors to the funeral
Does Monarchism correlate with irrational superstition?
Discuss…
Judging by the list of most democratic countries, constitutional monarchy correlates fairly well with that.
The root causes of the global financial crash were as much behavioural as structural - and prominent among them was the bank bonus culture. There's not a shred of doubt about this.
That's the bit that, as a provincial physics master looking on, bothers me.
Even if the UK can increase its tax revenues by turbocharging the City (and that depends on assumptions about shapes of graphs and our current position on them), what are the second order effects of doing this? Partly an increased frequency of crashes, but also the hollowing out of London as a place where anything else can happen and the thought that all those mega minds could be making actual things, solving actual problems, rather than going for the rewards of taking the corners of capitalism a tiny bit faster.
One of the things that humanity has to work hard to overcome is the temptation to go for something-for-nothing quick wins. And relying on a smallish number of footloose, reward-driven people shuffling numbers around to provide the tax revenues to pay for the rest of us feels like it ought to be filed in the "what's the catch?" box.
For the religious/superstitious inclined we've had the rainbow at Buck Palace around the time of the announcement of death, the meteor on the first night of lying in state in London. What's next for the funeral? Any solar eclipses scheduled? Or are we looking at rain of frogs* or something?
*Before TSE or someone else mentions it, I'm not meaning cross-channel visitors to the funeral
If there's one thing I've learnt from playing Paradox/Europa Universalis style games it is that comets being sighted causes a drop in stability.
I'm not certain though after the last decade just how much less stable we could get?
Analyst on R5L’s wake up to money - tracking a basket of essential goods says price difference between Morrissons and Aldi is now 40%. Explained by Morrisons having to service a gigantic debt.
Shop at Aldi, people.
Good morning
I heard that report as well and it is astonishing that Morrisons apparently have a 7 billion debt
Shop anywhere but Morrisons would be the message
5live also discussed Kwarteng's proposal to abolish city bonuses and it really does make you wonder if the conservative party have lost all it's instincts to govern
It may be the right thing from a business sense, but the optics are shocking and hands yet another gift to labour
It is the right thing from city workers sense. It is a bad thing for shareholders and really bad for government and taxpayers who will eventually have to fund another bailout with years of austerity.
I'm curious about this idea that bankers bonuses caused the subprime mortgage crisis.
I am even more curious about the idea that there will ever be another bank bailout.
Extreme bankers bonuses create incentives for bankers to gamble with the banks money. If they win, fantastic, if they lose its not their money and as long as you can talk the talk and know some of the right people, it is still easy to get another job.
That culture feeds through to the banks to gamble, notionally with their money, but knowing they have a government funded back stop as they are too big to fail.
Take away the controls and regulation and sooner or later we shall be back to bail outs.
Well, it's too bad the Labour government didn't do something about it then...
Of course. Not sure why you think that is relevant when they have not been in power for a long time and it is the current governments policies that will matter.
Well, the view of Labour supporters on the GFC is "it started in America".
That's not the view of Labour supporters, it is a statement of fact.
The global [key word, there] financial crisis started in America. Britain was very poorly placed to weather it because Gordon Brown had spent the previous 6 years [after an admirable initial period of restraint] pissing money up the wall, spending more than he raked in even during times of relative financial health. Personally I couldn't give a fig how big bankers' bonuses are. I don't care at all about the optics, I care about the gap between what we spend and what we earn. That should be the #1 issue for a chancellor of the exchequer to worry about. If this measure narrows that gap (and I am at best agnostic about whether it will) it should be welcomed.
Britain was hit badly because we have a large globally exposed financial sector and one of our biggest banks was in the midst of an ill-advised over-leveraged buying spree at the top of the market. Running a structural deficit of 4% of GDP in 2007 compared to a G7 average of 3% is unlikely to have been a significant factor in explaining why we were hit worse than others, no matter how much people want it to be Gordon Brown's fault.
Do you think Gordon Brown's removal of financial regulations and monitoring allowing companies like Northern Rock to provide 125% mortgages helped?
Meanwhile I'd like to see the Chris Kaba bodycam footage.
There is that, and the testimony of those involved - it should be like VAR for the IOPC and they should have a judgement within days, surely.
The Police Federation are apoplectic with rage at the suspension. A quick judgement and reinstatement would contain their anger.
Am I missing something? I thought it was standard practice to suspend any officer involved in a shooting till it had been investigated*, without prejudice to the offier in question.
*Edit: at least internally.
I think it is normally put on restricted duties - non-firearms work.
This is an actual suspension - go home etc.
The repeated threats over the years to down tools by the armed police over investigations led T May, when she was Home Sec to change the firearms thing from being a voluntary duty to requiring officers to formally sign up for it. Which means that if they down tools, it is a disciplinary issue.
I can imagine shooting the Commissioner would be a disciplinary issue, whatever the benefit to the country.
Oh sorry, not 'down tools' in that sense?
Some years ago, I was at a social thing. A policeman very proudly announced, in conversation, that all the firearms offices would quit if one of them was prosecuted.
He was surprised that the reaction of everyone else in the conversation was “they must all be guilty, then”.
I think everyone gets the story here - vehicle pinged for firearms offences, AFOs dispatched not knowing what they will find, hard stop, chaos, firearm(s) discharged, no non-police firearms found at the scene.
Still plenty of blurred round the edges stuff here.
Thing is, we also have bodycam footage, apparently, and that should assist IOPC greatly. Although if I were a betting man (I am) it might be that Kaba is out of shot for critical moments of the incident and it will come down to IOPC having to make a judgement call.
Still shouldn't take too long, that said.
Yes.
The enquiry will take time though, to write the full report. And jumping the gun (!) on that would bring the IOPC into disrepute.
The threats of stopping firearms duty are especially stupid.
Analyst on R5L’s wake up to money - tracking a basket of essential goods says price difference between Morrissons and Aldi is now 40%. Explained by Morrisons having to service a gigantic debt.
Shop at Aldi, people.
Good morning
I heard that report as well and it is astonishing that Morrisons apparently have a 7 billion debt
Shop anywhere but Morrisons would be the message
5live also discussed Kwarteng's proposal to abolish city bonuses and it really does make you wonder if the conservative party have lost all it's instincts to govern
It may be the right thing from a business sense, but the optics are shocking and hands yet another gift to labour
It is the right thing from city workers sense. It is a bad thing for shareholders and really bad for government and taxpayers who will eventually have to fund another bailout with years of austerity.
I'm curious about this idea that bankers bonuses caused the subprime mortgage crisis.
I am even more curious about the idea that there will ever be another bank bailout.
Extreme bankers bonuses create incentives for bankers to gamble with the banks money. If they win, fantastic, if they lose its not their money and as long as you can talk the talk and know some of the right people, it is still easy to get another job.
That culture feeds through to the banks to gamble, notionally with their money, but knowing they have a government funded back stop as they are too big to fail.
Take away the controls and regulation and sooner or later we shall be back to bail outs.
Well, it's too bad the Labour government didn't do something about it then...
Of course. Not sure why you think that is relevant when they have not been in power for a long time and it is the current governments policies that will matter.
Well, the view of Labour supporters on the GFC is "it started in America".
That's not the view of Labour supporters, it is a statement of fact.
The global [key word, there] financial crisis started in America. Britain was very poorly placed to weather it because Gordon Brown had spent the previous 6 years [after an admirable initial period of restraint] pissing money up the wall, spending more than he raked in even during times of relative financial health. Personally I couldn't give a fig how big bankers' bonuses are. I don't care at all about the optics, I care about the gap between what we spend and what we earn. That should be the #1 issue for a chancellor of the exchequer to worry about. If this measure narrows that gap (and I am at best agnostic about whether it will) it should be welcomed.
Britain was hit badly because we have a large globally exposed financial sector and one of our biggest banks was in the midst of an ill-advised over-leveraged buying spree at the top of the market. Running a structural deficit of 4% of GDP in 2007 compared to a G7 average of 3% is unlikely to have been a significant factor in explaining why we were hit worse than others, no matter how much people want it to be Gordon Brown's fault.
The man on the street in the UK felt it most keenly because our financial institutions had a vulnerable business model and we know who changed the regulatory oversight regime for financial institutions, now, don't we.
For the religious/superstitious inclined we've had the rainbow at Buck Palace around the time of the announcement of death, the meteor on the first night of lying in state in London. What's next for the funeral? Any solar eclipses scheduled? Or are we looking at rain of frogs* or something?
*Before TSE or someone else mentions it, I'm not meaning cross-channel visitors to the funeral
Happened in 1066 when there was a royal death and a comet. Led to an over 300 year reign of frogs.
Disagree - Until Dick they were basically French, but John lacked a great connection to France and I think Harry 3 was effectively English
The first native speaker of English to hold the crown after 1066 was Henry IV in 1399.
You are incidentally forgetting that both John's mother and father were French and so was his (second) wife.
As were the wives of Henry III, Edward I, Edward II and Edward III (well, half French half Dutch in the last case).
And indeed Henry V and Henry VI.
In fact, I seem to have underestimated the length of the reign of Frogs.
My understanding is that the cap on bankers' bonuses was imposed by the EU. So, lifting that cap means that the government can at last demonstrate one very clear benefit of Brexit as the UK goes it alone.
We should all celebrate: Brexit has a point, after all. Vote Brexit, make bankers richer. Yay.
That was identified by Remainers, rightly or wrongly, as a key motivation for Brexit IIRC even before the referendum, wasn't it? Also the impending EU clampdown on tax havens.
Revenues in some parts of the banking business are down 80-90% this year.
Historically you had low fixed costs (an MD at a broking firm might have a salary of £100k and earn up to £750k as a bonus. So you are ok in a horrible year.
Now the salaries are £300k and the bonuses capped at £600k. The total compensation is about the same - but in a bad year the banks lose pots of money
My heart bleeds. Poor bankers.
The bankers are fine.
If the banks lose money then there is less capital to lend to businesses and other ordinary people
Analyst on R5L’s wake up to money - tracking a basket of essential goods says price difference between Morrissons and Aldi is now 40%. Explained by Morrisons having to service a gigantic debt.
Shop at Aldi, people.
Good morning
I heard that report as well and it is astonishing that Morrisons apparently have a 7 billion debt
Shop anywhere but Morrisons would be the message
5live also discussed Kwarteng's proposal to abolish city bonuses and it really does make you wonder if the conservative party have lost all it's instincts to govern
It may be the right thing from a business sense, but the optics are shocking and hands yet another gift to labour
It is the right thing from city workers sense. It is a bad thing for shareholders and really bad for government and taxpayers who will eventually have to fund another bailout with years of austerity.
I'm curious about this idea that bankers bonuses caused the subprime mortgage crisis.
I am even more curious about the idea that there will ever be another bank bailout.
Extreme bankers bonuses create incentives for bankers to gamble with the banks money. If they win, fantastic, if they lose its not their money and as long as you can talk the talk and know some of the right people, it is still easy to get another job.
That culture feeds through to the banks to gamble, notionally with their money, but knowing they have a government funded back stop as they are too big to fail.
Take away the controls and regulation and sooner or later we shall be back to bail outs.
Well, it's too bad the Labour government didn't do something about it then...
Of course. Not sure why you think that is relevant when they have not been in power for a long time and it is the current governments policies that will matter.
Well, the view of Labour supporters on the GFC is "it started in America".
That's not the view of Labour supporters, it is a statement of fact.
The global [key word, there] financial crisis started in America. Britain was very poorly placed to weather it because Gordon Brown had spent the previous 6 years [after an admirable initial period of restraint] pissing money up the wall, spending more than he raked in even during times of relative financial health. Personally I couldn't give a fig how big bankers' bonuses are. I don't care at all about the optics, I care about the gap between what we spend and what we earn. That should be the #1 issue for a chancellor of the exchequer to worry about. If this measure narrows that gap (and I am at best agnostic about whether it will) it should be welcomed.
Britain was hit badly because we have a large globally exposed financial sector and one of our biggest banks was in the midst of an ill-advised over-leveraged buying spree at the top of the market. Running a structural deficit of 4% of GDP in 2007 compared to a G7 average of 3% is unlikely to have been a significant factor in explaining why we were hit worse than others, no matter how much people want it to be Gordon Brown's fault.
A personal favourite of the Brown days was the threat to Barclays for pulling out of the bidding war for ABN-AMRO
Quick recap of the big UK fireball last night: – videos show it lasted at least ~20s. – several eyewitnesses reported (via AMS system) booms/rumbles in the minute or so after. – not clear yet whether it was natural or debris (@UKMeteorNetwork experts working on that now).
Somebody posted on here that they had seen a meteor. I thought at the time that's it was an odd thing to post, given you van see a meteor in the country on most clear nights if you wait a while.
Now I understand why he/she was moved to post about it. A memorable sight, no doubt.
That was me…. We live in a converted barn with a big window where the barn door used to be… sitting watching TV (Buzzcocks on catch up) we saw this brilliant, white ball of light with a tail appear from the south (window looks north west) and travel on an almost flat trajectory… leaped up to the window and watched it shoot across the Lake District and start to break up… before falling away and turning dark red, by now we were seeing it from behind…
White in front and a red behind… are you sure it wasn’t a baboon?
Analyst on R5L’s wake up to money - tracking a basket of essential goods says price difference between Morrissons and Aldi is now 40%. Explained by Morrisons having to service a gigantic debt.
Shop at Aldi, people.
Good morning
I heard that report as well and it is astonishing that Morrisons apparently have a 7 billion debt
Shop anywhere but Morrisons would be the message
5live also discussed Kwarteng's proposal to abolish city bonuses and it really does make you wonder if the conservative party have lost all it's instincts to govern
It may be the right thing from a business sense, but the optics are shocking and hands yet another gift to labour
It is the right thing from city workers sense. It is a bad thing for shareholders and really bad for government and taxpayers who will eventually have to fund another bailout with years of austerity.
I'm curious about this idea that bankers bonuses caused the subprime mortgage crisis.
I am even more curious about the idea that there will ever be another bank bailout.
Extreme bankers bonuses create incentives for bankers to gamble with the banks money. If they win, fantastic, if they lose its not their money and as long as you can talk the talk and know some of the right people, it is still easy to get another job.
That culture feeds through to the banks to gamble, notionally with their money, but knowing they have a government funded back stop as they are too big to fail.
Take away the controls and regulation and sooner or later we shall be back to bail outs.
Well, it's too bad the Labour government didn't do something about it then...
Of course. Not sure why you think that is relevant when they have not been in power for a long time and it is the current governments policies that will matter.
Well, the view of Labour supporters on the GFC is "it started in America".
That's not the view of Labour supporters, it is a statement of fact.
The global [key word, there] financial crisis started in America. Britain was very poorly placed to weather it because Gordon Brown had spent the previous 6 years [after an admirable initial period of restraint] pissing money up the wall, spending more than he raked in even during times of relative financial health. Personally I couldn't give a fig how big bankers' bonuses are. I don't care at all about the optics, I care about the gap between what we spend and what we earn. That should be the #1 issue for a chancellor of the exchequer to worry about. If this measure narrows that gap (and I am at best agnostic about whether it will) it should be welcomed.
Britain was hit badly because we have a large globally exposed financial sector and one of our biggest banks was in the midst of an ill-advised over-leveraged buying spree at the top of the market. Running a structural deficit of 4% of GDP in 2007 compared to a G7 average of 3% is unlikely to have been a significant factor in explaining why we were hit worse than others, no matter how much people want it to be Gordon Brown's fault.
The man on the street in the UK felt it most keenly because our financial institutions had a vulnerable business model and we know who changed the regulatory oversight regime for financial institutions, now, don't we.
Northern Rock wasn't based in Arkansas.
And what inspired the regulatory atmosphere ? The kind of thinking coming from straight the right of the Tory party. Remember our friend Mr Hannan's protests in the mid-2000's, that we weren't financially enough like Iceland ?
And then, in 2012-2016, and the run-up to the Brexit vote, what would be more rational than to hand the same good chaps the central influence all over again. With the election of Truss, we're finally starting to see the fruits and endgame of that.
But particularly for one quote from the founder: “I was in Forbes magazine listed as a billionaire, which really, really pissed me off,” he said. “I don’t have $1bn in the bank. I don’t drive Lexuses.”
If he thinks driving a Lexus is the epitome of wealthy excess then I'm inclined to believe that he really doesn't live like a billionaire!
Analyst on R5L’s wake up to money - tracking a basket of essential goods says price difference between Morrissons and Aldi is now 40%. Explained by Morrisons having to service a gigantic debt.
Shop at Aldi, people.
Good morning
I heard that report as well and it is astonishing that Morrisons apparently have a 7 billion debt
Shop anywhere but Morrisons would be the message
5live also discussed Kwarteng's proposal to abolish city bonuses and it really does make you wonder if the conservative party have lost all it's instincts to govern
It may be the right thing from a business sense, but the optics are shocking and hands yet another gift to labour
It is the right thing from city workers sense. It is a bad thing for shareholders and really bad for government and taxpayers who will eventually have to fund another bailout with years of austerity.
I'm curious about this idea that bankers bonuses caused the subprime mortgage crisis.
I am even more curious about the idea that there will ever be another bank bailout.
Extreme bankers bonuses create incentives for bankers to gamble with the banks money. If they win, fantastic, if they lose its not their money and as long as you can talk the talk and know some of the right people, it is still easy to get another job.
That culture feeds through to the banks to gamble, notionally with their money, but knowing they have a government funded back stop as they are too big to fail.
Take away the controls and regulation and sooner or later we shall be back to bail outs.
Well, it's too bad the Labour government didn't do something about it then...
Of course. Not sure why you think that is relevant when they have not been in power for a long time and it is the current governments policies that will matter.
Well, the view of Labour supporters on the GFC is "it started in America".
That's not the view of Labour supporters, it is a statement of fact.
The global [key word, there] financial crisis started in America. Britain was very poorly placed to weather it because Gordon Brown had spent the previous 6 years [after an admirable initial period of restraint] pissing money up the wall, spending more than he raked in even during times of relative financial health. Personally I couldn't give a fig how big bankers' bonuses are. I don't care at all about the optics, I care about the gap between what we spend and what we earn. That should be the #1 issue for a chancellor of the exchequer to worry about. If this measure narrows that gap (and I am at best agnostic about whether it will) it should be welcomed.
Britain was hit badly because we have a large globally exposed financial sector and one of our biggest banks was in the midst of an ill-advised over-leveraged buying spree at the top of the market. Running a structural deficit of 4% of GDP in 2007 compared to a G7 average of 3% is unlikely to have been a significant factor in explaining why we were hit worse than others, no matter how much people want it to be Gordon Brown's fault.
I’m surprised the G7 *structural* deficit was 3%. Do you have stats?
Analyst on R5L’s wake up to money - tracking a basket of essential goods says price difference between Morrissons and Aldi is now 40%. Explained by Morrisons having to service a gigantic debt.
Shop at Aldi, people.
Good morning
I heard that report as well and it is astonishing that Morrisons apparently have a 7 billion debt
Shop anywhere but Morrisons would be the message
5live also discussed Kwarteng's proposal to abolish city bonuses and it really does make you wonder if the conservative party have lost all it's instincts to govern
It may be the right thing from a business sense, but the optics are shocking and hands yet another gift to labour
It is the right thing from city workers sense. It is a bad thing for shareholders and really bad for government and taxpayers who will eventually have to fund another bailout with years of austerity.
I'm curious about this idea that bankers bonuses caused the subprime mortgage crisis.
I am even more curious about the idea that there will ever be another bank bailout.
Extreme bankers bonuses create incentives for bankers to gamble with the banks money. If they win, fantastic, if they lose its not their money and as long as you can talk the talk and know some of the right people, it is still easy to get another job.
That culture feeds through to the banks to gamble, notionally with their money, but knowing they have a government funded back stop as they are too big to fail.
Take away the controls and regulation and sooner or later we shall be back to bail outs.
Well, it's too bad the Labour government didn't do something about it then...
Of course. Not sure why you think that is relevant when they have not been in power for a long time and it is the current governments policies that will matter.
Well, the view of Labour supporters on the GFC is "it started in America".
That's not the view of Labour supporters, it is a statement of fact.
The global [key word, there] financial crisis started in America. Britain was very poorly placed to weather it because Gordon Brown had spent the previous 6 years [after an admirable initial period of restraint] pissing money up the wall, spending more than he raked in even during times of relative financial health. Personally I couldn't give a fig how big bankers' bonuses are. I don't care at all about the optics, I care about the gap between what we spend and what we earn. That should be the #1 issue for a chancellor of the exchequer to worry about. If this measure narrows that gap (and I am at best agnostic about whether it will) it should be welcomed.
Britain was hit badly because we have a large globally exposed financial sector and one of our biggest banks was in the midst of an ill-advised over-leveraged buying spree at the top of the market. Running a structural deficit of 4% of GDP in 2007 compared to a G7 average of 3% is unlikely to have been a significant factor in explaining why we were hit worse than others, no matter how much people want it to be Gordon Brown's fault.
The man on the street in the UK felt it most keenly because our financial institutions had a vulnerable business model and we know who changed the regulatory oversight regime for financial institutions, now, don't we.
Northern Rock wasn't based in Arkansas.
And what inspired the change in the business model ? The kind of thinking coming from the right of the Tory party.
Actually the Tories specifically warned Brown about the risks he was taking, warnings that came prophetically true.
My understanding is that the cap on bankers' bonuses was imposed by the EU. So, lifting that cap means that the government can at last demonstrate one very clear benefit of Brexit as the UK goes it alone.
We should all celebrate: Brexit has a point, after all. Vote Brexit, make bankers richer. Yay.
That was identified by Remainers, rightly or wrongly, as a key motivation for Brexit IIRC even before the referendum, wasn't it? Also the impending EU clampdown on tax havens.
Revenues in some parts of the banking business are down 80-90% this year.
Historically you had low fixed costs (an MD at a broking firm might have a salary of £100k and earn up to £750k as a bonus. So you are ok in a horrible year.
Now the salaries are £300k and the bonuses capped at £600k. The total compensation is about the same - but in a bad year the banks lose pots of money
My heart bleeds. Poor bankers.
The bankers are fine.
If the banks lose money then there is less capital to lend to businesses and other ordinary people
Analyst on R5L’s wake up to money - tracking a basket of essential goods says price difference between Morrissons and Aldi is now 40%. Explained by Morrisons having to service a gigantic debt.
Shop at Aldi, people.
I don't think that's it. ASDA also have a gigantic debt after being bought out in 2020 - approx £4 billion vs £6 billion. Financial engineers maximising profit?
Here ASDA & Morrisons are my two closest superstores, and the difference is that ASDA are quite stripped out with very limited personal service fresh produce, and Morrisons have their own butcher, big delicatessen, wet fish counter and so on. Plus a wider product range.
I'm not sure where Morrisons will go market wise - I shop there for fresh produce especially fish and the service, plus some niche products. I'm only in ASDA about once a year - mainly for drinks at Christmas.
...the only reason I ever go to Asda now is because they're about the last place in Southern Staffordshire you can buy French mustard for some odd reason.
Odd indeed. My local Sainsbury's allows me to buy it, without even asking me why I want it.
Ukraine also claiming that they downed 5 Russian planes yesterday: 1 Su 25 and 4 Su 24. Russia's worst day of air losses since the beginning of the invasion, if confirmed.
Analyst on R5L’s wake up to money - tracking a basket of essential goods says price difference between Morrissons and Aldi is now 40%. Explained by Morrisons having to service a gigantic debt.
Shop at Aldi, people.
Good morning
I heard that report as well and it is astonishing that Morrisons apparently have a 7 billion debt
Shop anywhere but Morrisons would be the message
5live also discussed Kwarteng's proposal to abolish city bonuses and it really does make you wonder if the conservative party have lost all it's instincts to govern
It may be the right thing from a business sense, but the optics are shocking and hands yet another gift to labour
It is the right thing from city workers sense. It is a bad thing for shareholders and really bad for government and taxpayers who will eventually have to fund another bailout with years of austerity.
I'm curious about this idea that bankers bonuses caused the subprime mortgage crisis.
I am even more curious about the idea that there will ever be another bank bailout.
Extreme bankers bonuses create incentives for bankers to gamble with the banks money. If they win, fantastic, if they lose its not their money and as long as you can talk the talk and know some of the right people, it is still easy to get another job.
That culture feeds through to the banks to gamble, notionally with their money, but knowing they have a government funded back stop as they are too big to fail.
Take away the controls and regulation and sooner or later we shall be back to bail outs.
Well, it's too bad the Labour government didn't do something about it then...
Of course. Not sure why you think that is relevant when they have not been in power for a long time and it is the current governments policies that will matter.
Well, the view of Labour supporters on the GFC is "it started in America".
That's not the view of Labour supporters, it is a statement of fact.
The global [key word, there] financial crisis started in America. Britain was very poorly placed to weather it because Gordon Brown had spent the previous 6 years [after an admirable initial period of restraint] pissing money up the wall, spending more than he raked in even during times of relative financial health. Personally I couldn't give a fig how big bankers' bonuses are. I don't care at all about the optics, I care about the gap between what we spend and what we earn. That should be the #1 issue for a chancellor of the exchequer to worry about. If this measure narrows that gap (and I am at best agnostic about whether it will) it should be welcomed.
Britain was hit badly because we have a large globally exposed financial sector and one of our biggest banks was in the midst of an ill-advised over-leveraged buying spree at the top of the market. Running a structural deficit of 4% of GDP in 2007 compared to a G7 average of 3% is unlikely to have been a significant factor in explaining why we were hit worse than others, no matter how much people want it to be Gordon Brown's fault.
Running a structural deficit of 4% during pre-crash times is utterly catastrophic as when the crash inevitably comes and you inevitably need countercyclical spending to go with it, then you have nowhere to go.
The fact that some other countries were nearly as bad as the UK doesn't justify or excuse what Brown did.
Analyst on R5L’s wake up to money - tracking a basket of essential goods says price difference between Morrissons and Aldi is now 40%. Explained by Morrisons having to service a gigantic debt.
Shop at Aldi, people.
Good morning
I heard that report as well and it is astonishing that Morrisons apparently have a 7 billion debt
Shop anywhere but Morrisons would be the message
5live also discussed Kwarteng's proposal to abolish city bonuses and it really does make you wonder if the conservative party have lost all it's instincts to govern
It may be the right thing from a business sense, but the optics are shocking and hands yet another gift to labour
It is the right thing from city workers sense. It is a bad thing for shareholders and really bad for government and taxpayers who will eventually have to fund another bailout with years of austerity.
I'm curious about this idea that bankers bonuses caused the subprime mortgage crisis.
I am even more curious about the idea that there will ever be another bank bailout.
Extreme bankers bonuses create incentives for bankers to gamble with the banks money. If they win, fantastic, if they lose its not their money and as long as you can talk the talk and know some of the right people, it is still easy to get another job.
That culture feeds through to the banks to gamble, notionally with their money, but knowing they have a government funded back stop as they are too big to fail.
Take away the controls and regulation and sooner or later we shall be back to bail outs.
Well, it's too bad the Labour government didn't do something about it then...
Of course. Not sure why you think that is relevant when they have not been in power for a long time and it is the current governments policies that will matter.
Well, the view of Labour supporters on the GFC is "it started in America".
That's not the view of Labour supporters, it is a statement of fact.
The global [key word, there] financial crisis started in America. Britain was very poorly placed to weather it because Gordon Brown had spent the previous 6 years [after an admirable initial period of restraint] pissing money up the wall, spending more than he raked in even during times of relative financial health. Personally I couldn't give a fig how big bankers' bonuses are. I don't care at all about the optics, I care about the gap between what we spend and what we earn. That should be the #1 issue for a chancellor of the exchequer to worry about. If this measure narrows that gap (and I am at best agnostic about whether it will) it should be welcomed.
Britain was hit badly because we have a large globally exposed financial sector and one of our biggest banks was in the midst of an ill-advised over-leveraged buying spree at the top of the market. Running a structural deficit of 4% of GDP in 2007 compared to a G7 average of 3% is unlikely to have been a significant factor in explaining why we were hit worse than others, no matter how much people want it to be Gordon Brown's fault.
The man on the street in the UK felt it most keenly because our financial institutions had a vulnerable business model and we know who changed the regulatory oversight regime for financial institutions, now, don't we.
Northern Rock wasn't based in Arkansas.
And what inspired the change in the business model ? The kind of thinking coming from the right of the Tory party.
Huh? That is a stretch. Lab had been in power for 10 years and all of a sudden it's Bill Cash dictating policy?
For the religious/superstitious inclined we've had the rainbow at Buck Palace around the time of the announcement of death, the meteor on the first night of lying in state in London. What's next for the funeral? Any solar eclipses scheduled? Or are we looking at rain of frogs* or something?
*Before TSE or someone else mentions it, I'm not meaning cross-channel visitors to the funeral
Happened in 1066 when there was a royal death and a comet. Led to an over 300 year reign of frogs.
Disagree - Until Dick they were basically French, but John lacked a great connection to France and I think Harry 3 was effectively English
The first native speaker of English to hold the crown after 1066 was Henry IV in 1399.
You are incidentally forgetting that both John's mother and father were French and so was his (second) wife.
As were the wives of Henry III, Edward I, Edward II and Edward III (well, half French half Dutch in the last case).
And indeed Henry V and Henry VI.
In fact, I seem to have underestimated the length of the reign of Frogs.
For the religious/superstitious inclined we've had the rainbow at Buck Palace around the time of the announcement of death, the meteor on the first night of lying in state in London. What's next for the funeral? Any solar eclipses scheduled? Or are we looking at rain of frogs* or something?
*Before TSE or someone else mentions it, I'm not meaning cross-channel visitors to the funeral
If there's one thing I've learnt from playing Paradox/Europa Universalis style games it is that comets being sighted causes a drop in stability.
I'm not certain though after the last decade just how much less stable we could get?
There was also a sighting of Theresa May around the same time, which is never a good omen for stability.
Analyst on R5L’s wake up to money - tracking a basket of essential goods says price difference between Morrissons and Aldi is now 40%. Explained by Morrisons having to service a gigantic debt.
Shop at Aldi, people.
Good morning
I heard that report as well and it is astonishing that Morrisons apparently have a 7 billion debt
Shop anywhere but Morrisons would be the message
5live also discussed Kwarteng's proposal to abolish city bonuses and it really does make you wonder if the conservative party have lost all it's instincts to govern
It may be the right thing from a business sense, but the optics are shocking and hands yet another gift to labour
It is the right thing from city workers sense. It is a bad thing for shareholders and really bad for government and taxpayers who will eventually have to fund another bailout with years of austerity.
I'm curious about this idea that bankers bonuses caused the subprime mortgage crisis.
I am even more curious about the idea that there will ever be another bank bailout.
Extreme bankers bonuses create incentives for bankers to gamble with the banks money. If they win, fantastic, if they lose its not their money and as long as you can talk the talk and know some of the right people, it is still easy to get another job.
That culture feeds through to the banks to gamble, notionally with their money, but knowing they have a government funded back stop as they are too big to fail.
Take away the controls and regulation and sooner or later we shall be back to bail outs.
Well, it's too bad the Labour government didn't do something about it then...
Of course. Not sure why you think that is relevant when they have not been in power for a long time and it is the current governments policies that will matter.
Well, the view of Labour supporters on the GFC is "it started in America".
That's not the view of Labour supporters, it is a statement of fact.
The global [key word, there] financial crisis started in America. Britain was very poorly placed to weather it because Gordon Brown had spent the previous 6 years [after an admirable initial period of restraint] pissing money up the wall, spending more than he raked in even during times of relative financial health. Personally I couldn't give a fig how big bankers' bonuses are. I don't care at all about the optics, I care about the gap between what we spend and what we earn. That should be the #1 issue for a chancellor of the exchequer to worry about. If this measure narrows that gap (and I am at best agnostic about whether it will) it should be welcomed.
Britain was hit badly because we have a large globally exposed financial sector and one of our biggest banks was in the midst of an ill-advised over-leveraged buying spree at the top of the market. Running a structural deficit of 4% of GDP in 2007 compared to a G7 average of 3% is unlikely to have been a significant factor in explaining why we were hit worse than others, no matter how much people want it to be Gordon Brown's fault.
The man on the street in the UK felt it most keenly because our financial institutions had a vulnerable business model and we know who changed the regulatory oversight regime for financial institutions, now, don't we.
Northern Rock wasn't based in Arkansas.
Oh I agree, but the regulatory oversight regime was changed in response to multiple failures (BCCI, Barings) under the previous regime. So it's not clear that leaving that regime in place would have helped. Northern Rock was more of a bank run/panic reflecting vulnerabilities on the liabilities side of the balance sheet. There was nothing fundamentally rotten on the asset side, reflected in the fact that IIRC the bailout of NR didn't cost taxpayers anything in the end. RBS is a different story. Ultimately the UK business model involves an outsized City taking outsized risks. Without the City the economy would be an absolute basket case and the government would be broke. But that dependence creates big vulnerabilities and when a once in a generation global financial crisis hits we are going to get hit worse than most, regardless of the regulatory regime in place.
Analyst on R5L’s wake up to money - tracking a basket of essential goods says price difference between Morrissons and Aldi is now 40%. Explained by Morrisons having to service a gigantic debt.
Shop at Aldi, people.
Good morning
I heard that report as well and it is astonishing that Morrisons apparently have a 7 billion debt
Shop anywhere but Morrisons would be the message
5live also discussed Kwarteng's proposal to abolish city bonuses and it really does make you wonder if the conservative party have lost all it's instincts to govern
It may be the right thing from a business sense, but the optics are shocking and hands yet another gift to labour
It is the right thing from city workers sense. It is a bad thing for shareholders and really bad for government and taxpayers who will eventually have to fund another bailout with years of austerity.
I'm curious about this idea that bankers bonuses caused the subprime mortgage crisis.
I am even more curious about the idea that there will ever be another bank bailout.
Extreme bankers bonuses create incentives for bankers to gamble with the banks money. If they win, fantastic, if they lose its not their money and as long as you can talk the talk and know some of the right people, it is still easy to get another job.
That culture feeds through to the banks to gamble, notionally with their money, but knowing they have a government funded back stop as they are too big to fail.
Take away the controls and regulation and sooner or later we shall be back to bail outs.
Well, it's too bad the Labour government didn't do something about it then...
Of course. Not sure why you think that is relevant when they have not been in power for a long time and it is the current governments policies that will matter.
Well, the view of Labour supporters on the GFC is "it started in America".
That's not the view of Labour supporters, it is a statement of fact.
The global [key word, there] financial crisis started in America. Britain was very poorly placed to weather it because Gordon Brown had spent the previous 6 years [after an admirable initial period of restraint] pissing money up the wall, spending more than he raked in even during times of relative financial health. Personally I couldn't give a fig how big bankers' bonuses are. I don't care at all about the optics, I care about the gap between what we spend and what we earn. That should be the #1 issue for a chancellor of the exchequer to worry about. If this measure narrows that gap (and I am at best agnostic about whether it will) it should be welcomed.
Britain was hit badly because we have a large globally exposed financial sector and one of our biggest banks was in the midst of an ill-advised over-leveraged buying spree at the top of the market. Running a structural deficit of 4% of GDP in 2007 compared to a G7 average of 3% is unlikely to have been a significant factor in explaining why we were hit worse than others, no matter how much people want it to be Gordon Brown's fault.
A personal favourite of the Brown days was the threat to Barclays for pulling out of the bidding war for ABN-AMRO
I liked forcing Lloyds, a well managed bank, to take on the steaming pile of shit that was HBOS
But particularly for one quote from the founder: “I was in Forbes magazine listed as a billionaire, which really, really pissed me off,” he said. “I don’t have $1bn in the bank. I don’t drive Lexuses.”
If he thinks driving a Lexus is the epitome of wealthy excess then I'm inclined to believe that he really doesn't live like a billionaire!
My impulse is to say, good on him. But the economist in me says we need these rich fkers to spend their fortunes on stupid, labour intensive extravagances.
The main problem with capitalism is, in my considered view, the accumulation and hoarding of wealth beyond the level needed to provide reasonable financial security.
Seems like a decent chap who hasn’t fallen into this trap.
"Queen Elizabeth’s death marks the latest step away from divinely ordained monarchy, towards something else. No longer sacred, the European monarch would rather be a pilot, or a country gentleman interested in urban planning. Another step along the path we have travelled since the laying of hands on His Majesty to cure disease was suspended after Queen Anne. It is no longer possible to suspend disbelief. The magic — or rather the mindset — was gone. There have been tears for the Queen this week, but can we imagine the same for Prince William decades from now?"
The monarch will always be divinely ordained, whatever liberal intellectuals may wish
Alternatively, you will always believe in fairies, and the Tory party.
There's also the slight problem that, *on the monarchy's own evidence*, it supports two different religions, or at least two very different varieties of non-RC Christianity, one north and the other south of the border. The English variety of Catholic episcopalianism, subordinating Church to State, is completely incompatible with Calvinist Presbyterianism. As indeed the history of the High Kirk of St Giles reminds us.
That seems to me to be a bit of a theological distinction, in both senses. There are far too many nuances and shades of grey.
There is no established church in Scotland, so I don't see how particular religious requirements can be placed on the monarch or the nation.
Secondly, it gets more interesting elsewhere' King Charles is also head of state of Papua New Guinea, for example. And that is a *very* interesting place for religion.
And the links between CofS and CofE pointed out above imo suggest that 'completely incompatible' is an overstatement.
Incidentally, as someone who studied queuing theory, having a stabl(ish) length of queue is an interest achievement.
Do we know how long it is taking for each mile of the queue to move through?
I would guess that the slower the queue the more stable its length, as it's length will be a total of the arrivals over a longer period, and so you'd have less effect from short-term fluctuations in the number of people arriving into the queue.
Analyst on R5L’s wake up to money - tracking a basket of essential goods says price difference between Morrissons and Aldi is now 40%. Explained by Morrisons having to service a gigantic debt.
Shop at Aldi, people.
Good morning
I heard that report as well and it is astonishing that Morrisons apparently have a 7 billion debt
Shop anywhere but Morrisons would be the message
5live also discussed Kwarteng's proposal to abolish city bonuses and it really does make you wonder if the conservative party have lost all it's instincts to govern
It may be the right thing from a business sense, but the optics are shocking and hands yet another gift to labour
It is the right thing from city workers sense. It is a bad thing for shareholders and really bad for government and taxpayers who will eventually have to fund another bailout with years of austerity.
I'm curious about this idea that bankers bonuses caused the subprime mortgage crisis.
I am even more curious about the idea that there will ever be another bank bailout.
Extreme bankers bonuses create incentives for bankers to gamble with the banks money. If they win, fantastic, if they lose its not their money and as long as you can talk the talk and know some of the right people, it is still easy to get another job.
That culture feeds through to the banks to gamble, notionally with their money, but knowing they have a government funded back stop as they are too big to fail.
Take away the controls and regulation and sooner or later we shall be back to bail outs.
Well, it's too bad the Labour government didn't do something about it then...
Of course. Not sure why you think that is relevant when they have not been in power for a long time and it is the current governments policies that will matter.
Well, the view of Labour supporters on the GFC is "it started in America".
That's not the view of Labour supporters, it is a statement of fact.
The global [key word, there] financial crisis started in America. Britain was very poorly placed to weather it because Gordon Brown had spent the previous 6 years [after an admirable initial period of restraint] pissing money up the wall, spending more than he raked in even during times of relative financial health. Personally I couldn't give a fig how big bankers' bonuses are. I don't care at all about the optics, I care about the gap between what we spend and what we earn. That should be the #1 issue for a chancellor of the exchequer to worry about. If this measure narrows that gap (and I am at best agnostic about whether it will) it should be welcomed.
Britain was hit badly because we have a large globally exposed financial sector and one of our biggest banks was in the midst of an ill-advised over-leveraged buying spree at the top of the market. Running a structural deficit of 4% of GDP in 2007 compared to a G7 average of 3% is unlikely to have been a significant factor in explaining why we were hit worse than others, no matter how much people want it to be Gordon Brown's fault.
The man on the street in the UK felt it most keenly because our financial institutions had a vulnerable business model and we know who changed the regulatory oversight regime for financial institutions, now, don't we.
Northern Rock wasn't based in Arkansas.
Oh I agree, but the regulatory oversight regime was changed in response to multiple failures (BCCI, Barings) under the previous regime. So it's not clear that leaving that regime in place would have helped. Northern Rock was more of a bank run/panic reflecting vulnerabilities on the liabilities side of the balance sheet. There was nothing fundamentally rotten on the asset side, reflected in the fact that IIRC the bailout of NR didn't cost taxpayers anything in the end. RBS is a different story. Ultimately the UK business model involves an outsized City taking outsized risks. Without the City the economy would be an absolute basket case and the government would be broke. But that dependence creates big vulnerabilities and when a once in a generation global financial crisis hits we are going to get hit worse than most, regardless of the regulatory regime in place.
Oh for sure but at a different moment in the cycle the ABN acquisition could have been a masterstroke.
But yes, to maintain the same bid level when there had been a 40% rerating by the market should have told Fred that all was not well.
Analyst on R5L’s wake up to money - tracking a basket of essential goods says price difference between Morrissons and Aldi is now 40%. Explained by Morrisons having to service a gigantic debt.
Shop at Aldi, people.
I don't think that's it. ASDA also have a gigantic debt after being bought out in 2020 - approx £4 billion vs £6 billion. Financial engineers maximising profit?
Here ASDA & Morrisons are my two closest superstores, and the difference is that ASDA are quite stripped out with very limited personal service fresh produce, and Morrisons have their own butcher, big delicatessen, wet fish counter and so on. Plus a wider product range.
I'm not sure where Morrisons will go market wise - I shop there for fresh produce especially fish and the service, plus some niche products. I'm only in ASDA about once a year - mainly for drinks at Christmas.
Correction - I need to withdraw the above as I mistook ASDA for Aldi. Apologies.
But particularly for one quote from the founder: “I was in Forbes magazine listed as a billionaire, which really, really pissed me off,” he said. “I don’t have $1bn in the bank. I don’t drive Lexuses.”
If he thinks driving a Lexus is the epitome of wealthy excess then I'm inclined to believe that he really doesn't live like a billionaire!
My impulse is to say, good on him. But the economist in me says we need these rich fkers to spend their fortunes on stupid, labour intensive extravagances.
The main problem with capitalism is, in my considered view, the accumulation and hoarding of wealth beyond the level needed to provide reasonable financial security.
Seems like a decent chap who hasn’t fallen into this trap.
It can have an effect on disrupting certain issues.
A Boeing executive complained at a Congresional hearing that is virtually impossible for his poor company to compete with organisations that do ridiculous things like meeting prices on a fixed price contract. And uncapitalist thugs like investing their own money in product development, rather than 100% government funded…
But particularly for one quote from the founder: “I was in Forbes magazine listed as a billionaire, which really, really pissed me off,” he said. “I don’t have $1bn in the bank. I don’t drive Lexuses.”
If he thinks driving a Lexus is the epitome of wealthy excess then I'm inclined to believe that he really doesn't live like a billionaire!
My impulse is to say, good on him. But the economist in me says we need these rich fkers to spend their fortunes on stupid, labour intensive extravagances.....
In effect he is, except the extravagance isn't stupid.
The profits from the company will, rather than being paid out as dividends to him and his family, be used towards combating climate change. If that means, for example, investment in renewable energy in developing countries, that benefits everyone.
Analyst on R5L’s wake up to money - tracking a basket of essential goods says price difference between Morrissons and Aldi is now 40%. Explained by Morrisons having to service a gigantic debt.
Shop at Aldi, people.
I don't think that's it. ASDA also have a gigantic debt after being bought out in 2020 - approx £4 billion vs £6 billion. Financial engineers maximising profit?
Here ASDA & Morrisons are my two closest superstores, and the difference is that ASDA are quite stripped out with very limited personal service fresh produce, and Morrisons have their own butcher, big delicatessen, wet fish counter and so on. Plus a wider product range.
I'm not sure where Morrisons will go market wise - I shop there for fresh produce especially fish and the service, plus some niche products. I'm only in ASDA about once a year - mainly for drinks at Christmas.
Correction - I need to withdraw the above as I mistook ASDA for Aldi. Apologies.
No problem! Your post didn’t make much sense to me, so I didn’t reply.
Vaguely related - this is an entertaining guardian long read on Aldi from 3 years ago, which covers their ownership structure in some detail;
Analyst on R5L’s wake up to money - tracking a basket of essential goods says price difference between Morrissons and Aldi is now 40%. Explained by Morrisons having to service a gigantic debt.
Shop at Aldi, people.
Good morning
I heard that report as well and it is astonishing that Morrisons apparently have a 7 billion debt
Shop anywhere but Morrisons would be the message
5live also discussed Kwarteng's proposal to abolish city bonuses and it really does make you wonder if the conservative party have lost all it's instincts to govern
It may be the right thing from a business sense, but the optics are shocking and hands yet another gift to labour
It is the right thing from city workers sense. It is a bad thing for shareholders and really bad for government and taxpayers who will eventually have to fund another bailout with years of austerity.
I'm curious about this idea that bankers bonuses caused the subprime mortgage crisis.
I am even more curious about the idea that there will ever be another bank bailout.
Extreme bankers bonuses create incentives for bankers to gamble with the banks money. If they win, fantastic, if they lose its not their money and as long as you can talk the talk and know some of the right people, it is still easy to get another job.
That culture feeds through to the banks to gamble, notionally with their money, but knowing they have a government funded back stop as they are too big to fail.
Take away the controls and regulation and sooner or later we shall be back to bail outs.
Well, it's too bad the Labour government didn't do something about it then...
Of course. Not sure why you think that is relevant when they have not been in power for a long time and it is the current governments policies that will matter.
Well, the view of Labour supporters on the GFC is "it started in America".
That's not the view of Labour supporters, it is a statement of fact.
The global [key word, there] financial crisis started in America. Britain was very poorly placed to weather it because Gordon Brown had spent the previous 6 years [after an admirable initial period of restraint] pissing money up the wall, spending more than he raked in even during times of relative financial health. Personally I couldn't give a fig how big bankers' bonuses are. I don't care at all about the optics, I care about the gap between what we spend and what we earn. That should be the #1 issue for a chancellor of the exchequer to worry about. If this measure narrows that gap (and I am at best agnostic about whether it will) it should be welcomed.
Britain was hit badly because we have a large globally exposed financial sector and one of our biggest banks was in the midst of an ill-advised over-leveraged buying spree at the top of the market. Running a structural deficit of 4% of GDP in 2007 compared to a G7 average of 3% is unlikely to have been a significant factor in explaining why we were hit worse than others, no matter how much people want it to be Gordon Brown's fault.
The man on the street in the UK felt it most keenly because our financial institutions had a vulnerable business model and we know who changed the regulatory oversight regime for financial institutions, now, don't we.
Northern Rock wasn't based in Arkansas.
And what inspired the change in the business model ? The kind of thinking coming from the right of the Tory party.
Huh? That is a stretch. Lab had been in power for 10 years and all of a sudden it's Bill Cash dictating policy?
Look at Gordon's Brown's triumphalist speech he made to the City before the crash. The tone is much more set by the Daniel Hannans of our world and than anything coming from the Labour party.
Analyst on R5L’s wake up to money - tracking a basket of essential goods says price difference between Morrissons and Aldi is now 40%. Explained by Morrisons having to service a gigantic debt.
Shop at Aldi, people.
Good morning
I heard that report as well and it is astonishing that Morrisons apparently have a 7 billion debt
Shop anywhere but Morrisons would be the message
5live also discussed Kwarteng's proposal to abolish city bonuses and it really does make you wonder if the conservative party have lost all it's instincts to govern
It may be the right thing from a business sense, but the optics are shocking and hands yet another gift to labour
It is the right thing from city workers sense. It is a bad thing for shareholders and really bad for government and taxpayers who will eventually have to fund another bailout with years of austerity.
I'm curious about this idea that bankers bonuses caused the subprime mortgage crisis.
I am even more curious about the idea that there will ever be another bank bailout.
Extreme bankers bonuses create incentives for bankers to gamble with the banks money. If they win, fantastic, if they lose its not their money and as long as you can talk the talk and know some of the right people, it is still easy to get another job.
That culture feeds through to the banks to gamble, notionally with their money, but knowing they have a government funded back stop as they are too big to fail.
Take away the controls and regulation and sooner or later we shall be back to bail outs.
Well, it's too bad the Labour government didn't do something about it then...
Of course. Not sure why you think that is relevant when they have not been in power for a long time and it is the current governments policies that will matter.
Well, the view of Labour supporters on the GFC is "it started in America".
That's not the view of Labour supporters, it is a statement of fact.
The global [key word, there] financial crisis started in America. Britain was very poorly placed to weather it because Gordon Brown had spent the previous 6 years [after an admirable initial period of restraint] pissing money up the wall, spending more than he raked in even during times of relative financial health. Personally I couldn't give a fig how big bankers' bonuses are. I don't care at all about the optics, I care about the gap between what we spend and what we earn. That should be the #1 issue for a chancellor of the exchequer to worry about. If this measure narrows that gap (and I am at best agnostic about whether it will) it should be welcomed.
Britain was hit badly because we have a large globally exposed financial sector and one of our biggest banks was in the midst of an ill-advised over-leveraged buying spree at the top of the market. Running a structural deficit of 4% of GDP in 2007 compared to a G7 average of 3% is unlikely to have been a significant factor in explaining why we were hit worse than others, no matter how much people want it to be Gordon Brown's fault.
Running a structural deficit of 4% during pre-crash times is utterly catastrophic as when the crash inevitably comes and you inevitably need countercyclical spending to go with it, then you have nowhere to go.
The fact that some other countries were nearly as bad as the UK doesn't justify or excuse what Brown did.
But it is hard to blame Brown's fiscal policy for us being hit *much worse than others* when Brown's fiscal policy was *pretty much the same as others'*. That was the point I was responding to. Also worth noting that our debt to GDP ratio in 2007 was 41% (down from 43% in 1997) compared to a G7 average of 81%. So we had plenty of space to run countercyclical fiscal policy, certainly compared to other countries, and indeed the increase in our debt to GDP ratio between 2007 and 2010 (33pp) was almost identical to the G7 average (32pp), suggesting that we were indeed able to run a countercyclical fiscal policy just like other economies.
Incidentally, as someone who studied queuing theory, having a stabl(ish) length of queue is an interest achievement.
Do we know how long it is taking for each mile of the queue to move through?
I would guess that the slower the queue the more stable its length, as it's length will be a total of the arrivals over a longer period, and so you'd have less effect from short-term fluctuations in the number of people arriving into the queue.
Just anecdotally, someone on a large group chat I'm on said that they joined the queue at 4:30pm yesterday afternoon (roughly at London Bridge), they were pretty impressed by the fact that they had crossed Lambeth Bridge and were about to enter Victoria Palace Gardens at 7:30pm, but then didn't get into Westminster Hall until midnight. Described interminable parallel lines in the gardens which moved really, really slowly, and sometimes appeared to just stop for an hour.
Also - for anyone going - security is described as 'unreasonably strict' - as an example lip balm got removed as 'liquid like', no food and drink past security at all.
For the religious/superstitious inclined we've had the rainbow at Buck Palace around the time of the announcement of death, the meteor on the first night of lying in state in London. What's next for the funeral? Any solar eclipses scheduled? Or are we looking at rain of frogs* or something?
*Before TSE or someone else mentions it, I'm not meaning cross-channel visitors to the funeral
Happened in 1066 when there was a royal death and a comet. Led to an over 300 year reign of frogs.
Disagree - Until Dick they were basically French, but John lacked a great connection to France and I think Harry 3 was effectively English
The first native speaker of English to hold the crown after 1066 was Henry IV in 1399.
You are incidentally forgetting that both John's mother and father were French and so was his (second) wife.
As were the wives of Henry III, Edward I, Edward II and Edward III (well, half French half Dutch in the last case).
And indeed Henry V and Henry VI.
In fact, I seem to have underestimated the length of the reign of Frogs.
Analyst on R5L’s wake up to money - tracking a basket of essential goods says price difference between Morrissons and Aldi is now 40%. Explained by Morrisons having to service a gigantic debt.
Shop at Aldi, people.
Good morning
I heard that report as well and it is astonishing that Morrisons apparently have a 7 billion debt
Shop anywhere but Morrisons would be the message
5live also discussed Kwarteng's proposal to abolish city bonuses and it really does make you wonder if the conservative party have lost all it's instincts to govern
It may be the right thing from a business sense, but the optics are shocking and hands yet another gift to labour
It is the right thing from city workers sense. It is a bad thing for shareholders and really bad for government and taxpayers who will eventually have to fund another bailout with years of austerity.
I'm curious about this idea that bankers bonuses caused the subprime mortgage crisis.
I am even more curious about the idea that there will ever be another bank bailout.
Extreme bankers bonuses create incentives for bankers to gamble with the banks money. If they win, fantastic, if they lose its not their money and as long as you can talk the talk and know some of the right people, it is still easy to get another job.
That culture feeds through to the banks to gamble, notionally with their money, but knowing they have a government funded back stop as they are too big to fail.
Take away the controls and regulation and sooner or later we shall be back to bail outs.
Well, it's too bad the Labour government didn't do something about it then...
Of course. Not sure why you think that is relevant when they have not been in power for a long time and it is the current governments policies that will matter.
Well, the view of Labour supporters on the GFC is "it started in America".
That's not the view of Labour supporters, it is a statement of fact.
The global [key word, there] financial crisis started in America. Britain was very poorly placed to weather it because Gordon Brown had spent the previous 6 years [after an admirable initial period of restraint] pissing money up the wall, spending more than he raked in even during times of relative financial health. Personally I couldn't give a fig how big bankers' bonuses are. I don't care at all about the optics, I care about the gap between what we spend and what we earn. That should be the #1 issue for a chancellor of the exchequer to worry about. If this measure narrows that gap (and I am at best agnostic about whether it will) it should be welcomed.
Britain was hit badly because we have a large globally exposed financial sector and one of our biggest banks was in the midst of an ill-advised over-leveraged buying spree at the top of the market. Running a structural deficit of 4% of GDP in 2007 compared to a G7 average of 3% is unlikely to have been a significant factor in explaining why we were hit worse than others, no matter how much people want it to be Gordon Brown's fault.
The man on the street in the UK felt it most keenly because our financial institutions had a vulnerable business model and we know who changed the regulatory oversight regime for financial institutions, now, don't we.
Northern Rock wasn't based in Arkansas.
And what inspired the change in the business model ? The kind of thinking coming from the right of the Tory party.
Actually the Tories specifically warned Brown about the risks he was taking, warnings that came prophetically true.
Aye..
"George Osborne, 2006 'In an age that demands a light touch, [Brown] offers that clunking fist. He has clobbered business with £50bn of regulation, when we should be liberating our economy to compete.'
Osborne, 2007 'We need to be clear about who is responsible for monitoring liquidity and to ensure that regulation does not prevent us from dealing with a liquidity crisis when it arises ... we also need to insist that any new system, while protecting savers, does not stifle financial innovation or protect investors when that innovation goes wrong.'
John Redwood, 2007 'We see no need to continue to regulate the provision of mortgage finance, as it is the lending institutions rather than the client taking the risk' "
Analyst on R5L’s wake up to money - tracking a basket of essential goods says price difference between Morrissons and Aldi is now 40%. Explained by Morrisons having to service a gigantic debt.
Shop at Aldi, people.
I don't think that's it. ASDA also have a gigantic debt after being bought out in 2020 - approx £4 billion vs £6 billion. Financial engineers maximising profit?
Here ASDA & Morrisons are my two closest superstores, and the difference is that ASDA are quite stripped out with very limited personal service fresh produce, and Morrisons have their own butcher, big delicatessen, wet fish counter and so on. Plus a wider product range.
I'm not sure where Morrisons will go market wise - I shop there for fresh produce especially fish and the service, plus some niche products. I'm only in ASDA about once a year - mainly for drinks at Christmas.
Correction - I need to withdraw the above as I mistook ASDA for Aldi. Apologies.
No problem! Your post didn’t make much sense to me, so I didn’t reply.
Vaguely related - this is an entertaining guardian long read on Aldi from 3 years ago, which covers their ownership structure in some detail;
Amusingly, the Spectator seemed to have tried to remove Daniel Hannan's mid-2000's article on the natural connection between the pre- crash Icelandic deregulatory model and Brexit, but it's still available on a last couple of left-of-centre websites.
Being partly Scahdinavian in outlook, ofcourse, Iceland has since taken major social readjustment and rebalancing measures that Tory governments have shown absolutely zero interest in, or perhaps understanding of. The key aspect is a very literal reading of total deregulation and exit from the EU, completely overlooking the very different social bonds and attitudes of Iceland from Britain.
"Being outside the EU, Iceland has been able to cut taxes and regulation, and to open up its economy. For 70 years the Althing has been dominated by the splendidly named Independence party, which has pursued the kind of Thatcherite agenda that is off limits to EU members.
Icelanders understand that there is a connection between living in an independent state and living independently from the state. They have no more desire to submit to international than to national regulation. That attitude has made them the happiest, freest and wealthiest people on earth."
Analyst on R5L’s wake up to money - tracking a basket of essential goods says price difference between Morrissons and Aldi is now 40%. Explained by Morrisons having to service a gigantic debt.
Shop at Aldi, people.
Good morning
I heard that report as well and it is astonishing that Morrisons apparently have a 7 billion debt
Shop anywhere but Morrisons would be the message
5live also discussed Kwarteng's proposal to abolish city bonuses and it really does make you wonder if the conservative party have lost all it's instincts to govern
It may be the right thing from a business sense, but the optics are shocking and hands yet another gift to labour
It is the right thing from city workers sense. It is a bad thing for shareholders and really bad for government and taxpayers who will eventually have to fund another bailout with years of austerity.
I'm curious about this idea that bankers bonuses caused the subprime mortgage crisis.
I am even more curious about the idea that there will ever be another bank bailout.
Extreme bankers bonuses create incentives for bankers to gamble with the banks money. If they win, fantastic, if they lose its not their money and as long as you can talk the talk and know some of the right people, it is still easy to get another job.
That culture feeds through to the banks to gamble, notionally with their money, but knowing they have a government funded back stop as they are too big to fail.
Take away the controls and regulation and sooner or later we shall be back to bail outs.
Well, it's too bad the Labour government didn't do something about it then...
Of course. Not sure why you think that is relevant when they have not been in power for a long time and it is the current governments policies that will matter.
Well, the view of Labour supporters on the GFC is "it started in America".
That's not the view of Labour supporters, it is a statement of fact.
The global [key word, there] financial crisis started in America. Britain was very poorly placed to weather it because Gordon Brown had spent the previous 6 years [after an admirable initial period of restraint] pissing money up the wall, spending more than he raked in even during times of relative financial health. Personally I couldn't give a fig how big bankers' bonuses are. I don't care at all about the optics, I care about the gap between what we spend and what we earn. That should be the #1 issue for a chancellor of the exchequer to worry about. If this measure narrows that gap (and I am at best agnostic about whether it will) it should be welcomed.
Britain was hit badly because we have a large globally exposed financial sector and one of our biggest banks was in the midst of an ill-advised over-leveraged buying spree at the top of the market. Running a structural deficit of 4% of GDP in 2007 compared to a G7 average of 3% is unlikely to have been a significant factor in explaining why we were hit worse than others, no matter how much people want it to be Gordon Brown's fault.
Running a structural deficit of 4% during pre-crash times is utterly catastrophic as when the crash inevitably comes and you inevitably need countercyclical spending to go with it, then you have nowhere to go.
The fact that some other countries were nearly as bad as the UK doesn't justify or excuse what Brown did.
But it is hard to blame Brown's fiscal policy for us being hit *much worse than others* when Brown's fiscal policy was *pretty much the same as others'*. That was the point I was responding to. Also worth noting that our debt to GDP ratio in 2007 was 41% (down from 43% in 1997) compared to a G7 average of 81%. So we had plenty of space to run countercyclical fiscal policy, certainly compared to other countries, and indeed the increase in our debt to GDP ratio between 2007 and 2010 (33pp) was almost identical to the G7 average (32pp), suggesting that we were indeed able to run a countercyclical fiscal policy just like other economies.
Except it wasn't the same as others, it was via your own figures worse than others. And of course its worth noting that the G7 average includes the UK so the G7 average was itself getting dragged down by Brown's terrible performance.
Debt to GDP isn't the relevant figure, the deficit is, although its worth noting via your own figures again in the span of three years Brown nearly doubled our debt-to-GDP figure whereas G7 nations debt-to-GDP increased by much less than half.
The root causes of the global financial crash were as much behavioural as structural - and prominent among them was the bank bonus culture. There's not a shred of doubt about this.
You are right and wrong.
As you well know, it was about people creating products that no one really understood, most notably those who bought them. It was then the big revelatory lesson learned that it turns out that assets are correlated and you can't diversify your risk.
To say it was "bankers bonuses" is not really getting to the nub of the problem. It was as you say behavioural and went far deeper than the simple construct of bankers bonuses whereas it was the entire corpus of investment banking and how it earns its income.
In saying the bonus culture was a big factor I'm all right and no wrong. The sector decided to dispense with the noble art of risk management and the bonus culture was greatly to blame for this. But of course you're correct about wider and deeper and "more to it" etc.
I very much hope @Casino_Royale went. It seemed like something he needed to do.
I'm going tonight.
Good luck with the length, duration etc.
Thanks. I think the queue will be much longer tonight but I hope to get through by 3am so I can at least get 4 hours of sleep. Have to work tomorrow too.
I've booked a Premier Inn a few hundred yards away in Waterloo
Good idea. Remember to check in first. I worked with someone who found himself locked out of the hotel he thought he'd booked when he pitched up in the wee small hours, not a Premier Inn though.
It is time to get the Tories out and get Labour in.
Problem is that it isn't a terribly appealing thought even for those us who don't much like Truss. The reality is that the Clown has gone (hopefully for good), and Truss does need some time to see if she can bring back some sense of decent governance. As you know, I quite respect Starmer, and have always thought he was a lot better than his detractors believe. My problem is with a large part of the rest of the Labour Party; the "everything is better if it is nationalised and (effectively) run by the unions and let's tax the rich until the pips squeak" types. Starmer needs to do a lot of reassurance to wavering voters, so he needs time too.
Taxpayer subsidies to support energy companies Tax cuts that deliver huge sums to wealthy individuals and businesses Both funded by borrowing An end to limits on bankers' bonuses
The Tories are making very clear whose side they are on.
Remarkable - they seem determined to live up to a Socialist Workers Party caricature. I've spent all my life even in my most left-wing moments conceding that lots of Conservative Ministers thought they had the best interests of the whole country at heart, they just saw the route differently. I'm struggling to think that at the moment.
They are 100% invested in trickle-down economics. They believe that making rich people richer benefits everyone. I am not sure that works. I am even less sure that it works within the space of two years.
The interesting scenario is that the Ukrainian war ends, the economy rebounds and the Truss administration picks up the credit, despite their policies.
I don't see the end and the rebound happen before the next election, though.
Even when the war ends, the sanctions will probably continue, and the strategic restructuring away from dependency on Russian energy will almost certainly continue.
I think a more likely scenario is that people will be unwilling to give the government the benefit of the doubt once the war is over, even though a not-insignificant proportion of our woes can still be placed at the door of the Russian invasion.
However, it will inevitably be proceeded by a bounce induced by "Plucky Britain beat the Russkies! Well done Liz!" tabloid puffery.
Something along those lines might be a reason to favour Joe Biden in 2024. The United States is doing most of the heavy lifting against Russia, second to the Ukrainians, of course.
Taxpayer subsidies to support energy companies Tax cuts that deliver huge sums to wealthy individuals and businesses Both funded by borrowing An end to limits on bankers' bonuses
The Tories are making very clear whose side they are on.
Remarkable - they seem determined to live up to a Socialist Workers Party caricature. I've spent all my life even in my most left-wing moments conceding that lots of Conservative Ministers thought they had the best interests of the whole country at heart, they just saw the route differently. I'm struggling to think that at the moment.
They are 100% invested in trickle-down economics. They believe that making rich people richer benefits everyone. I am not sure that works. I am even less sure that it works within the space of two years.
The interesting scenario is that the Ukrainian war ends, the economy rebounds and the Truss administration picks up the credit, despite their policies.
I don't see the end and the rebound happen before the next election, though.
Even when the war ends, the sanctions will probably continue, and the strategic restructuring away from dependency on Russian energy will almost certainly continue.
I think a more likely scenario is that people will be unwilling to give the government the benefit of the doubt once the war is over, even though a not-insignificant proportion of our woes can still be placed at the door of the Russian invasion.
However, it will inevitably be proceeded by a bounce induced by "Plucky Britain beat the Russkies! Well done Liz!" tabloid puffery.
Something along those lines might be a reason to favour Joe Biden in 2024. The United States is doing most of the heavy lifting against Russia, second to the Ukrainians, of course.
The army bases in the UK are full of Ukrainians being trained
I am so looking forward to Jacob Rees Mogg declaring the end to the cap on bankers' bonuses as a big Brexit benefit and explaining why making the very rich even richer benefits everyone. It will be spectacular.
Labour need to be careful here. This will be wrapped up in bullshit aspiration rhetoric, despite the gap between rich and poor growing ever wider and harder to bridge.
Something that the sainted Margaret understood very well. It's why people buy lottery tickets. They might be shelf-stacking at Tesco but want a system whereby they can make undreamed of wealth by (theoretically, one day) moving to London and becoming a "banker".
Ken Livingstone blamed Labour's 1992 defeat on the team around Kinnock not understanding people's aspirations.
Analyst on R5L’s wake up to money - tracking a basket of essential goods says price difference between Morrissons and Aldi is now 40%. Explained by Morrisons having to service a gigantic debt.
Shop at Aldi, people.
Good morning
I heard that report as well and it is astonishing that Morrisons apparently have a 7 billion debt
Shop anywhere but Morrisons would be the message
5live also discussed Kwarteng's proposal to abolish city bonuses and it really does make you wonder if the conservative party have lost all it's instincts to govern
It may be the right thing from a business sense, but the optics are shocking and hands yet another gift to labour
It is the right thing from city workers sense. It is a bad thing for shareholders and really bad for government and taxpayers who will eventually have to fund another bailout with years of austerity.
I'm curious about this idea that bankers bonuses caused the subprime mortgage crisis.
I am even more curious about the idea that there will ever be another bank bailout.
Extreme bankers bonuses create incentives for bankers to gamble with the banks money. If they win, fantastic, if they lose its not their money and as long as you can talk the talk and know some of the right people, it is still easy to get another job.
That culture feeds through to the banks to gamble, notionally with their money, but knowing they have a government funded back stop as they are too big to fail.
Take away the controls and regulation and sooner or later we shall be back to bail outs.
Well, it's too bad the Labour government didn't do something about it then...
Of course. Not sure why you think that is relevant when they have not been in power for a long time and it is the current governments policies that will matter.
Well, the view of Labour supporters on the GFC is "it started in America".
That's not the view of Labour supporters, it is a statement of fact.
The global [key word, there] financial crisis started in America. Britain was very poorly placed to weather it because Gordon Brown had spent the previous 6 years [after an admirable initial period of restraint] pissing money up the wall, spending more than he raked in even during times of relative financial health. Personally I couldn't give a fig how big bankers' bonuses are. I don't care at all about the optics, I care about the gap between what we spend and what we earn. That should be the #1 issue for a chancellor of the exchequer to worry about. If this measure narrows that gap (and I am at best agnostic about whether it will) it should be welcomed.
Britain was hit badly because we have a large globally exposed financial sector and one of our biggest banks was in the midst of an ill-advised over-leveraged buying spree at the top of the market. Running a structural deficit of 4% of GDP in 2007 compared to a G7 average of 3% is unlikely to have been a significant factor in explaining why we were hit worse than others, no matter how much people want it to be Gordon Brown's fault.
The man on the street in the UK felt it most keenly because our financial institutions had a vulnerable business model and we know who changed the regulatory oversight regime for financial institutions, now, don't we.
Northern Rock wasn't based in Arkansas.
And what inspired the change in the business model ? The kind of thinking coming from the right of the Tory party.
Actually the Tories specifically warned Brown about the risks he was taking, warnings that came prophetically true.
Aye..
"George Osborne, 2006 'In an age that demands a light touch, [Brown] offers that clunking fist. He has clobbered business with £50bn of regulation, when we should be liberating our economy to compete.'
Osborne, 2007 'We need to be clear about who is responsible for monitoring liquidity and to ensure that regulation does not prevent us from dealing with a liquidity crisis when it arises ... we also need to insist that any new system, while protecting savers, does not stifle financial innovation or protect investors when that innovation goes wrong.'
John Redwood, 2007 'We see no need to continue to regulate the provision of mortgage finance, as it is the lending institutions rather than the client taking the risk' "
Poor ickle Gordon Brown did what the Opposition said he should do.
What would the Cons have done in power vs their Opposition rhetoric? Who knows and speculation is fruitless.
Analyst on R5L’s wake up to money - tracking a basket of essential goods says price difference between Morrissons and Aldi is now 40%. Explained by Morrisons having to service a gigantic debt.
Shop at Aldi, people.
Good morning
I heard that report as well and it is astonishing that Morrisons apparently have a 7 billion debt
Shop anywhere but Morrisons would be the message
5live also discussed Kwarteng's proposal to abolish city bonuses and it really does make you wonder if the conservative party have lost all it's instincts to govern
It may be the right thing from a business sense, but the optics are shocking and hands yet another gift to labour
It is the right thing from city workers sense. It is a bad thing for shareholders and really bad for government and taxpayers who will eventually have to fund another bailout with years of austerity.
I'm curious about this idea that bankers bonuses caused the subprime mortgage crisis.
I am even more curious about the idea that there will ever be another bank bailout.
Extreme bankers bonuses create incentives for bankers to gamble with the banks money. If they win, fantastic, if they lose its not their money and as long as you can talk the talk and know some of the right people, it is still easy to get another job.
That culture feeds through to the banks to gamble, notionally with their money, but knowing they have a government funded back stop as they are too big to fail.
Take away the controls and regulation and sooner or later we shall be back to bail outs.
Well, it's too bad the Labour government didn't do something about it then...
Of course. Not sure why you think that is relevant when they have not been in power for a long time and it is the current governments policies that will matter.
Well, the view of Labour supporters on the GFC is "it started in America".
That's not the view of Labour supporters, it is a statement of fact.
The global [key word, there] financial crisis started in America. Britain was very poorly placed to weather it because Gordon Brown had spent the previous 6 years [after an admirable initial period of restraint] pissing money up the wall, spending more than he raked in even during times of relative financial health. Personally I couldn't give a fig how big bankers' bonuses are. I don't care at all about the optics, I care about the gap between what we spend and what we earn. That should be the #1 issue for a chancellor of the exchequer to worry about. If this measure narrows that gap (and I am at best agnostic about whether it will) it should be welcomed.
Britain was hit badly because we have a large globally exposed financial sector and one of our biggest banks was in the midst of an ill-advised over-leveraged buying spree at the top of the market. Running a structural deficit of 4% of GDP in 2007 compared to a G7 average of 3% is unlikely to have been a significant factor in explaining why we were hit worse than others, no matter how much people want it to be Gordon Brown's fault.
Running a structural deficit of 4% during pre-crash times is utterly catastrophic as when the crash inevitably comes and you inevitably need countercyclical spending to go with it, then you have nowhere to go.
The fact that some other countries were nearly as bad as the UK doesn't justify or excuse what Brown did.
But it is hard to blame Brown's fiscal policy for us being hit *much worse than others* when Brown's fiscal policy was *pretty much the same as others'*. That was the point I was responding to. Also worth noting that our debt to GDP ratio in 2007 was 41% (down from 43% in 1997) compared to a G7 average of 81%. So we had plenty of space to run countercyclical fiscal policy, certainly compared to other countries, and indeed the increase in our debt to GDP ratio between 2007 and 2010 (33pp) was almost identical to the G7 average (32pp), suggesting that we were indeed able to run a countercyclical fiscal policy just like other economies.
The underlying error is to assume economic cycle(s) operate independently of national and multinational policy. This may have been the case in agrarian times when weather, harvests and an unsophisticated banking sector created cycles that were beyond comprehension. Keynes argued these effects could be mitigated by countercyclical borrowing. But Keynesian intervention can delay or exacerbate the underlying cycles because (a) no-one can be sure when the next cycle will peak and (b) individual countries with varying degrees of influence act according to different assumptions. For example, a 4% structural deficit will invariably lead to a recession because it will fuel asset-price inflation that, like every other Ponzi scheme, will eventually run out of steam and crash. So we enter the recession with a pre-existing deficit that can only be added to. Not what Keynes envisaged at all.
The root causes of the global financial crash were as much behavioural as structural - and prominent among them was the bank bonus culture. There's not a shred of doubt about this.
You are right and wrong.
As you well know, it was about people creating products that no one really understood, most notably those who bought them. It was then the big revelatory lesson learned that it turns out that assets are correlated and you can't diversify your risk.
To say it was "bankers bonuses" is not really getting to the nub of the problem. It was as you say behavioural and went far deeper than the simple construct of bankers bonuses whereas it was the entire corpus of investment banking and how it earns its income.
In saying the bonus culture was a big factor I'm all right and no wrong. The sector decided to dispense with the noble art of risk management and the bonus culture was greatly to blame for this. But of course you're correct about wider and deeper and "more to it" etc.
How, logically, could the bank bonus culture have caused the financial crash? The bonuses were paid by private companies out of profits. And, as Topping says, it was the bizarre products which were created and not understood which caused the collapses - the run on Northern Rock was nothing to do with bonuses. No-one who worked for Northern Rock received the big bonuses that are criticised. Not all banking is the same and "bankers bonuses" has become a vague catch-all term which is often unfair - especially to those who work in retail banking earning less that average earnings. The people receiving the astronomical bonuses were city traders.
Analyst on R5L’s wake up to money - tracking a basket of essential goods says price difference between Morrissons and Aldi is now 40%. Explained by Morrisons having to service a gigantic debt.
Shop at Aldi, people.
Good morning
I heard that report as well and it is astonishing that Morrisons apparently have a 7 billion debt
Shop anywhere but Morrisons would be the message
5live also discussed Kwarteng's proposal to abolish city bonuses and it really does make you wonder if the conservative party have lost all it's instincts to govern
It may be the right thing from a business sense, but the optics are shocking and hands yet another gift to labour
It is the right thing from city workers sense. It is a bad thing for shareholders and really bad for government and taxpayers who will eventually have to fund another bailout with years of austerity.
I'm curious about this idea that bankers bonuses caused the subprime mortgage crisis.
I am even more curious about the idea that there will ever be another bank bailout.
Extreme bankers bonuses create incentives for bankers to gamble with the banks money. If they win, fantastic, if they lose its not their money and as long as you can talk the talk and know some of the right people, it is still easy to get another job.
That culture feeds through to the banks to gamble, notionally with their money, but knowing they have a government funded back stop as they are too big to fail.
Take away the controls and regulation and sooner or later we shall be back to bail outs.
Well, it's too bad the Labour government didn't do something about it then...
Of course. Not sure why you think that is relevant when they have not been in power for a long time and it is the current governments policies that will matter.
Well, the view of Labour supporters on the GFC is "it started in America".
That's not the view of Labour supporters, it is a statement of fact.
The global [key word, there] financial crisis started in America. Britain was very poorly placed to weather it because Gordon Brown had spent the previous 6 years [after an admirable initial period of restraint] pissing money up the wall, spending more than he raked in even during times of relative financial health. Personally I couldn't give a fig how big bankers' bonuses are. I don't care at all about the optics, I care about the gap between what we spend and what we earn. That should be the #1 issue for a chancellor of the exchequer to worry about. If this measure narrows that gap (and I am at best agnostic about whether it will) it should be welcomed.
Britain was hit badly because we have a large globally exposed financial sector and one of our biggest banks was in the midst of an ill-advised over-leveraged buying spree at the top of the market. Running a structural deficit of 4% of GDP in 2007 compared to a G7 average of 3% is unlikely to have been a significant factor in explaining why we were hit worse than others, no matter how much people want it to be Gordon Brown's fault.
Running a structural deficit of 4% during pre-crash times is utterly catastrophic as when the crash inevitably comes and you inevitably need countercyclical spending to go with it, then you have nowhere to go.
The fact that some other countries were nearly as bad as the UK doesn't justify or excuse what Brown did.
But it is hard to blame Brown's fiscal policy for us being hit *much worse than others* when Brown's fiscal policy was *pretty much the same as others'*. That was the point I was responding to. Also worth noting that our debt to GDP ratio in 2007 was 41% (down from 43% in 1997) compared to a G7 average of 81%. So we had plenty of space to run countercyclical fiscal policy, certainly compared to other countries, and indeed the increase in our debt to GDP ratio between 2007 and 2010 (33pp) was almost identical to the G7 average (32pp), suggesting that we were indeed able to run a countercyclical fiscal policy just like other economies.
Except it wasn't the same as others, it was via your own figures worse than others. And of course its worth noting that the G7 average includes the UK so the G7 average was itself getting dragged down by Brown's terrible performance.
Debt to GDP isn't the relevant figure, the deficit is, although its worth noting via your own figures again in the span of three years Brown nearly doubled our debt-to-GDP figure whereas G7 nations debt-to-GDP increased by much less than half.
Gordon Brown's peak debt to GDP being around 3% iirc which was on a par with preceding Conservative governments. It was not significant and did not cause or exacerbate the GFC.
Also, aiui Team Truss has determined, as Cheney said of Reagan, that deficits don't matter and that George Osborne's austerity was a mistake that hobbled Britain's economy.
Terrible, terrible bet on both sides of the equation.
Anyone who backs Johnson to be PM at the next election is just throwing their money away. He won't be.
Anyone who backs Johnson not to be PM two years from now, for just a 5% return, when inflation is running at 10% per annum is just devaluing their own money and giving a negative real interest loan to Smarkets traders.
Comments
Was trading below £4, now up to £4.40.
Futures for this winter, higher still.
15p/kWh equivalent. The Oct 1st domestic cap is 10.3p/kWh, after VAT & network/ofgem costs.
Taxpayers on the hook for the difference.
And Good Morning one and all; bit brief this morning as the chap doing the wet room for us is, every so often, drilling. Very noisily! And of course it makes dictating to the computer difficult.
I wouldn't queue for 30 hours to see the Queen. But I'd queue to see the queue.
*Before TSE or someone else mentions it, I'm not meaning cross-channel visitors to the funeral
He was surprised that the reaction of everyone else in the conversation was “they must all be guilty, then”.
Discuss…
FWIW I am not that sold on the idea that the bonus cap achieves that, since finance is full of smart chaps who can figure out how to circumvent it. It might help a bit, and is perhaps a useful signal to bankers that they shouldn't take the piss. I do think that abolishing the bonus cap is a powerful political demonstration of whose side this government is on.
It isn't rocket science.
Still plenty of blurred round the edges stuff here.
Thing is, we also have bodycam footage, apparently, and that should assist IOPC greatly. Although if I were a betting man (I am) it might be that Kaba is out of shot for critical moments of the incident and it will come down to IOPC having to make a judgement call.
Still shouldn't take too long, that said.
Britain was very poorly placed to weather it because Gordon Brown had spent the previous 6 years [after an admirable initial period of restraint] pissing money up the wall, spending more than he raked in even during times of relative financial health.
Personally I couldn't give a fig how big bankers' bonuses are. I don't care at all about the optics, I care about the gap between what we spend and what we earn. That should be the #1 issue for a chancellor of the exchequer to worry about. If this measure narrows that gap (and I am at best agnostic about whether it will) it should be welcomed.
Vote Leave was the classic elite astroturfing exercise, because it grew straight out the meeting of Lord Leach, Matthew Elliott and Hannan in 2012, with the plutocratic interests of Business for Britain, and money coming in from Crispin Odey. Unlike the fond imaginings, it didn't grow organically out of a great cry for independence across the kingdom. The only really genuine, mass-popular interaction with this, in 2012-2015, was Farage's clever merging of EU immigration with the refugee crisis.
Let's double the pay of the many thousands of care workers instead to raise more taxes.
How are you going to source the money for paying double to care workers? By doubling private sector care fees, or by giving more tax revenue to the Care sector, which is where a lot of the money comes from?
You can't realistically increase tax revenues by spending more taxes. You can increase tax revenues by taking the brakes off the private sector so that the private sector generates more taxes for the public sector to use.
As you well know, it was about people creating products that no one really understood, most notably those who bought them. It was then the big revelatory lesson learned that it turns out that assets are correlated and you can't diversify your risk.
To say it was "bankers bonuses" is not really getting to the nub of the problem. It was as you say behavioural and went far deeper than the simple construct of bankers bonuses whereas it was the entire corpus of investment banking and how it earns its income.
https://uk.linkedin.com/jobs/financial-services-jobs?position=1&pageNum=0
In a sector which we now know is underwritten my government in the end, by necessity, I think that has to be right:
And that way lies either madness, or a very British system of reducing waiting times.
Vacant or full of shit.'
(With apologies to @TSE )
Even if the UK can increase its tax revenues by turbocharging the City (and that depends on assumptions about shapes of graphs and our current position on them), what are the second order effects of doing this? Partly an increased frequency of crashes, but also the hollowing out of London as a place where anything else can happen and the thought that all those mega minds could be making actual things, solving actual problems, rather than going for the rewards of taking the corners of capitalism a tiny bit faster.
One of the things that humanity has to work hard to overcome is the temptation to go for something-for-nothing quick wins. And relying on a smallish number of footloose, reward-driven people shuffling numbers around to provide the tax revenues to pay for the rest of us feels like it ought to be filed in the "what's the catch?" box.
I'm not certain though after the last decade just how much less stable we could get?
The enquiry will take time though, to write the full report. And jumping the gun (!) on that would bring the IOPC into disrepute.
The threats of stopping firearms duty are especially stupid.
Northern Rock wasn't based in Arkansas.
You are incidentally forgetting that both John's mother and father were French and so was his (second) wife.
As were the wives of Henry III, Edward I, Edward II and Edward III (well, half French half Dutch in the last case).
And indeed Henry V and Henry VI.
In fact, I seem to have underestimated the length of the reign of Frogs.
If the banks lose money then there is less capital to lend to businesses and other ordinary people
https://twitter.com/inkscribe/status/1570181711815901186?t=CUSiN-1apk_Y6898HqCMFA&s=19
And if the BBC aren't already working on a drama anthology of Tales from The Queue, then shame on them.
And then, in 2012-2016, and the run-up to the Brexit vote, what would be more rational than to hand the same good chaps the central influence all over again. With the election of Truss, we're finally starting to see the fruits and endgame of that.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/sep/14/patagonias-billionaire-owner-gives-away-company-to-fight-climate-crisis-yvon-chouinard
But particularly for one quote from the founder:
“I was in Forbes magazine listed as a billionaire, which really, really pissed me off,” he said. “I don’t have $1bn in the bank. I don’t drive Lexuses.”
If he thinks driving a Lexus is the epitome of wealthy excess then I'm inclined to believe that he really doesn't live like a billionaire!
The fact that some other countries were nearly as bad as the UK doesn't justify or excuse what Brown did.
Missing the “lackland” cue…
Mr. Roberts, but in Stellaris, a comet usually increases unity and can improve research speeds or happiness.
Northern Rock was more of a bank run/panic reflecting vulnerabilities on the liabilities side of the balance sheet. There was nothing fundamentally rotten on the asset side, reflected in the fact that IIRC the bailout of NR didn't cost taxpayers anything in the end. RBS is a different story.
Ultimately the UK business model involves an outsized City taking outsized risks. Without the City the economy would be an absolute basket case and the government would be broke. But that dependence creates big vulnerabilities and when a once in a generation global financial crisis hits we are going to get hit worse than most, regardless of the regulatory regime in place.
The main problem with capitalism is, in my considered view, the accumulation and hoarding of wealth beyond the level needed to provide reasonable financial security.
Seems like a decent chap who hasn’t fallen into this trap.
There is no established church in Scotland, so I don't see how particular religious requirements can be placed on the monarch or the nation.
Secondly, it gets more interesting elsewhere' King Charles is also head of state of Papua New Guinea, for example. And that is a *very* interesting place for religion.
And the links between CofS and CofE pointed out above imo suggest that 'completely incompatible' is an overstatement.
I would guess that the slower the queue the more stable its length, as it's length will be a total of the arrivals over a longer period, and so you'd have less effect from short-term fluctuations in the number of people arriving into the queue.
But yes, to maintain the same bid level when there had been a 40% rerating by the market should have told Fred that all was not well.
Asda = crap wine selection
Aldi = great wine selection (although noticeably worse than in months/years gone by)
Make yer mind up!
A Boeing executive complained at a Congresional hearing that is virtually impossible for his poor company to compete with organisations that do ridiculous things like meeting prices on a fixed price contract. And uncapitalist thugs like investing their own money in product development, rather than 100% government funded…
I’ll have to find the video - it was hysterical.
The profits from the company will, rather than being paid out as dividends to him and his family, be used towards combating climate change. If that means, for example, investment in renewable energy in developing countries, that benefits everyone.
Vaguely related - this is an entertaining guardian long read on Aldi from 3 years ago, which covers their ownership structure in some detail;
https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/05/long-read-aldi-discount-supermarket-changed-britain-shopping
Also worth noting that our debt to GDP ratio in 2007 was 41% (down from 43% in 1997) compared to a G7 average of 81%. So we had plenty of space to run countercyclical fiscal policy, certainly compared to other countries, and indeed the increase in our debt to GDP ratio between 2007 and 2010 (33pp) was almost identical to the G7 average (32pp), suggesting that we were indeed able to run a countercyclical fiscal policy just like other economies.
Also - for anyone going - security is described as 'unreasonably strict' - as an example lip balm got removed as 'liquid like', no food and drink past security at all.
swordsoap, sir!"George Osborne, 2006
'In an age that demands a light touch, [Brown] offers that clunking fist. He has clobbered business with £50bn of regulation, when we should be
liberating our economy to compete.'
Osborne, 2007
'We need to be clear about who is responsible for monitoring liquidity and to ensure that regulation does not prevent us from dealing with a liquidity crisis when it arises ... we also need to insist that any new system, while protecting savers, does not stifle financial innovation or protect investors when that innovation goes wrong.'
John Redwood, 2007
'We see no need to continue to regulate the provision of mortgage finance, as it is the lending institutions rather than the client taking the risk' "
Being partly Scahdinavian in outlook, ofcourse, Iceland has since taken major social readjustment and rebalancing measures that Tory governments have shown absolutely zero interest in, or perhaps understanding of. The key aspect is a very literal reading of total deregulation and exit from the EU, completely overlooking the very different social bonds and attitudes of Iceland from Britain.
"Being outside the EU, Iceland has been able to cut taxes and regulation, and to open up its economy. For 70 years the Althing has been dominated by the splendidly named Independence party, which has pursued the kind of Thatcherite agenda that is off limits to EU members.
Icelanders understand that there is a connection between living in an independent state and living independently from the state. They have no more desire to submit to international than to national regulation. That attitude has made them the happiest, freest and wealthiest people on earth."
Debt to GDP isn't the relevant figure, the deficit is, although its worth noting via your own figures again in the span of three years Brown nearly doubled our debt-to-GDP figure whereas G7 nations debt-to-GDP increased by much less than half.
What would the Cons have done in power vs their Opposition rhetoric? Who knows and speculation is fruitless.
Also, aiui Team Truss has determined, as Cheney said of Reagan, that deficits don't matter and that George Osborne's austerity was a mistake that hobbled Britain's economy.
Russia tells pilots to repair planes on their own to save on technicians
As well, Russian airlines also recommended their pilots to use less brakes when landing and taxiing in order to prolong the operational life of Western airliners
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1570230925908230144
Anyone who backs Johnson to be PM at the next election is just throwing their money away. He won't be.
Anyone who backs Johnson not to be PM two years from now, for just a 5% return, when inflation is running at 10% per annum is just devaluing their own money and giving a negative real interest loan to Smarkets traders.