Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

What an extraordinary first week for PM Truss – politicalbetting.com

13

Comments

  • tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ping said:

    Wow.

    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".
    The next one is starting in JRMs office.
  • pingping Posts: 3,281
    edited September 2022
    Looks to me like wholesale gas has bottomed out this week, after falling back from the record highs of £7/therm.

    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.
  • tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ping said:

    Wow.

    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.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,272

    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.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,965

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ping said:

    Wow.

    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?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,972
    Jonathan said:

    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".
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,876
    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?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,817
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ...

    TOPPING said:

    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”.
  • TOPPING said:

    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!’
  • pingping Posts: 3,281
    edited September 2022
    Selebian said:

    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…
  • tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ping said:

    Wow.

    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.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,445

    Carnyx said:

    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.
  • They should have had the Q(ue)² going to Bond St station so it could have joined the Elizabeth Line
  • 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.
  • Carnyx said:

    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.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,408

    Carnyx said:

    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.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,972

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ...

    TOPPING said:

    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.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 8,103

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ping said:

    Wow.

    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.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 7,375
    edited September 2022

    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.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,882
    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.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,972

    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.
  • Carnyx said:

    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).


    https://twitter.com/willgater/status/1570297320926756868

    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.
    And sound. We heard it indoors.
    Little video of it here : https://twitter.com/RhiannonHayes12/status/1570157723882323968
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 10,146
    edited September 2022

    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.
  • TOPPING said:

    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?
  • 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).


    https://twitter.com/willgater/status/1570297320926756868

    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…
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,972
    kinabalu said:

    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.
  • Cookie said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ping said:

    Wow.

    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.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,972
    edited September 2022

    TOPPING said:

    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?
    Yep.

    https://uk.linkedin.com/jobs/financial-services-jobs?position=1&pageNum=0
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,656
    kinabalu said:

    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:
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,408
    Cookie said:

    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.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,901
    Bankers bonuses are to the economy, what heat is to the internal combustion engine.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,876

    TOPPING said:

    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.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,408
    Selebian said:

    TOPPING said:

    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.

    Vacant or full of shit.'

    (With apologies to @TSE )
  • ydoethur said:

    Selebian said:

    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

  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,127
    edited September 2022
    ping said:

    Selebian said:

    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. :smile:


  • Selebian said:

    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?
  • Cookie said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ping said:

    Wow.

    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?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,817
    TOPPING said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ...

    TOPPING said:

    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.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,972

    Cookie said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ping said:

    Wow.

    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.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,408
    edited September 2022

    ydoethur said:

    Selebian said:

    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.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,817
    Incidentally, as someone who studied queuing theory, having a stabl(ish) length of queue is an interest achievement.
  • Carnyx said:

    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

  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    @Leon if you bump into any authors who are interested in AI and need an idea for their next novel here's a free one

    https://twitter.com/inkscribe/status/1570181711815901186?t=CUSiN-1apk_Y6898HqCMFA&s=19
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,817

    Cookie said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ping said:

    Wow.

    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).


    https://twitter.com/willgater/status/1570297320926756868

    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?
  • Incidentally, as someone who studied queuing theory, having a stabl(ish) length of queue is an interest achievement.

    Makes a chap proud to be British.

    And if the BBC aren't already working on a drama anthology of Tales from The Queue, then shame on them.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 7,375
    edited September 2022
    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ping said:

    Wow.

    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.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,876
    Interesting move by Patagonia (for the structuring, mostly)
    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!
  • Cookie said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ping said:

    Wow.

    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?
  • TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ping said:

    Wow.

    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.
  • Carnyx said:

    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

    Just Brexit accelerating the decline of the UK...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,853
    ydoethur said:

    MattW said:

    ping said:

    Wow.

    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?

    ASDA just had their credit rating cut to BB-minus because of heavy debt.
    https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-11204317/Ratings-agency-Fitch-sounds-alarm-Asdas-growing-debts.html

    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.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251
    Nigelb said:

    Overview of Russian equipment losses added on 14/09/2022

    Today's list is only slightly less crazy with 82 entries

    https://twitter.com/Rebel44CZ/status/1570188892514488325

    (Today's total for Ukraine - 8.)

    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.
  • Cookie said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ping said:

    Wow.

    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.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,972

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ping said:

    Wow.

    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?
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Selebian said:

    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.
    I’m so disappointed in you.

    Missing the “lackland” cue…
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,876

    Selebian said:

    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. :open_mouth:
  • Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Roberts, but in Stellaris, a comet usually increases unity and can improve research speeds or happiness.
  • TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ping said:

    Wow.

    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.
  • Cookie said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ping said:

    Wow.

    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
  • pingping Posts: 3,281
    edited September 2022
    Selebian said:

    Interesting move by Patagonia (for the structuring, mostly)
    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!

    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.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,127
    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Ben Judah in UnHerd

    "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?"

    https://unherd.com/2022/09/divine-monarchy-is-finished/

    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.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,972

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ping said:

    Wow.

    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.
  • Reading the overnight thread, I’m glad I’m not the only one who confuses Asda with Aldi
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,127
    MattW said:

    ping said:

    Wow.

    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?

    ASDA just had their credit rating cut to BB-minus because of heavy debt.
    https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-11204317/Ratings-agency-Fitch-sounds-alarm-Asdas-growing-debts.html

    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.
  • It is time to get the Tories out and get Labour in.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,972

    Reading the overnight thread, I’m glad I’m not the only one who confuses Asda with Aldi

    Allow me:

    Asda = crap wine selection
    Aldi = great wine selection (although noticeably worse than in months/years gone by)
  • pingping Posts: 3,281

    It is time to get the Tories out and get Labour in.

    Weren’t you cheering on Truss a few days ago?

    Make yer mind up!
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,817
    ping said:

    Selebian said:

    Interesting move by Patagonia (for the structuring, mostly)
    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!

    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…

    I’ll have to find the video - it was hysterical.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,853
    ping said:

    Selebian said:

    Interesting move by Patagonia (for the structuring, mostly)
    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!

    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.
  • pingping Posts: 3,281
    edited September 2022
    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    ping said:

    Wow.

    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?

    ASDA just had their credit rating cut to BB-minus because of heavy debt.
    https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-11204317/Ratings-agency-Fitch-sounds-alarm-Asdas-growing-debts.html

    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;

    https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/05/long-read-aldi-discount-supermarket-changed-britain-shopping
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 7,375
    edited September 2022
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ping said:

    Wow.

    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.
  • Cookie said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ping said:

    Wow.

    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.
  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,662

    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.
  • ping said:

    It is time to get the Tories out and get Labour in.

    Weren’t you cheering on Truss a few days ago?

    Make yer mind up!
    Wut, I've never been a Liz supporter ROFL
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,408

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Selebian said:

    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.
    I’m so disappointed in you.

    Missing the “lackland” cue…
    Enough of your soft sword soap, sir!
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,127
    ping said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    ping said:

    Wow.

    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?

    ASDA just had their credit rating cut to BB-minus because of heavy debt.
    https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-11204317/Ratings-agency-Fitch-sounds-alarm-Asdas-growing-debts.html

    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;

    https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/05/long-read-aldi-discount-supermarket-changed-britain-shopping
    It doesn't help that around here I have half a dozen Aldi's, including one much more lunch-orientated near the hospital, and a large ASDA.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 7,375
    edited September 2022
    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."


  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 10,146
    edited September 2022

    Cookie said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ping said:

    Wow.

    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.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,882
    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    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.
  • Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    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.
  • mwadams said:

    Jonathan said:

    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.
  • mwadams said:

    Jonathan said:

    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
  • TOPPING said:

    Jonathan said:

    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.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,460
    New thread
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,972

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ping said:

    Wow.

    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.
  • Cookie said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ping said:

    Wow.

    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.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 8,694
    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    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.
  • They should have had the Q(ue)² going to Bond St station so it could have joined the Elizabeth Line

    The wait until November 8 would be considerably longer than 30 hours.
  • Cookie said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    ping said:

    Wow.

    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.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,853
    This will end well...

    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
  • 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.
This discussion has been closed.