A pay policy for the whole City

Many City firms won't like this infringement of what they see as their fundamental right to pay as much as they like to whom they like in whatever way they like.

eh, no.

What they don't like is the idea that without public help in the form of massive subsidising bailouts, the bonus paid in shares may well turn out to be as financially rewarding as those Enron shares not so long ago!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

But for other financial firms, shelter from the official scrutiny may be obtained by fleeing to Asia or Wall Street or Switzerland.

That'll be the old slave traders threat to leave when the morally superior peasants demanded the trade in humans cease. Funnily, enough, the slave traders just like the bankers and financial spivs who made that threat in the past couple of years, didn't actually leave in droves.

Still, I expect thepoliticians who are hoping for a city job in a year or two will be changing their trousers as soon as a banker mouths the threat.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

If the rules set only relative restrictions (as in 40% of something...) and not an absolute cap, what could stop them awarding themselves 3 times what they otherwise do? (because this is what they do, don't they, they set their own bonuses).

Easily fixed, 95% supertax. The banker types can still feel moraly superior because they get a 3 million bonus, it's just that they have to hand over 2.8m of that in taxes. Everyone wins!.

Pay them their big bonuses, with the condition that they can take as much as they like. But they have to physically eat them first.

And give it to them in pound coins.

Why would a bunch of theives take any notice of the law? The tax avoidance industry must be rubbing their hands in glee for this boost to their business. Until the bankers guild (the answers are there in past history) are stopped from restrictive practices through the use of products and technology designed to exclude the mass population they will continue to pay themselves well beyond any real value or reason. Time for the guilty to be brought to book.

Stupefying bonuses reflect the obvious lack of real competition in the market and the ability of these companies to control the market and dictate their margins (and perform acts of gross deception on their clients - large and small). The sector needs supervision not regulation and governance standards backed by statute.

Mr. Peston, are you still not getting the sinking feeling that you are out of touch with your readers?

- there was widespread scepticism

Oh yes,

I've heard a duck fart before.

Sadly I'm with the scepticism.

Excellent.

The fake financial sector with its fake work, fake profits and insane greed has dragged the country down for decades. I hope the lazy spongers will leave the country for good.

Next: Break them up.

the public doesn't like having service cuts and additional taxes to pay off the bad debts of the banks but it seems they will. I would suggest all monies be returned to the governments and all bad loans returned to the banks...a stiff fine and tax for the harm they have done and everyone go about their business and get the banks off the dole. They live on the credit of the people and their arrogance is deserving of a slap into the reality of what they have caused. Unremorseful, unrepentant and undeserving.

Curbing how much people are paid will not cure or have any effect on preventing another financial crisis. In fact I have yet to see any benefit from curbing how much people are paid in the finance sector apart from baying to "public" dismay at someone being paid more than them. I am still waiting for someone to come up with a valid and defensible argument how this will stop another melt down happening again.

All I can see happening is hedge funds and smaller firms affected by this half thought out regulation moving to laxer tax regimes.

I can imagine the outpouring of "good riddance" comments that will undoubtedly flow on these blogs. But before you put fingers to key with the same "wave the flags" and "hold the door open" comments. Think about all the jobs that are leaving the UK, not just the hedge fund manager paid £x million but the admin staff, the receptionist and the many other staff that are paid an average wage that has just seen the firm they work for relocate to Switzerland or where ever. This doesn't even take into account all the services companies (small IT SME's) and others that provide services to said hedge funds and small financial firms that will now consider relocating.

So this simple bit of regulation aimed at a small minority earning a large wage will potentially put a few thousand ordinary workers out of work.

But it is easier to bay to public opinion that look at the root cause of the financial mess, and really regulate on what is traded and how (naked short selling), look at Bank's risk management processes that failed so spectacularly, more controlled lending with proper credit scoring (sub prime). There are a lot more problems in the financial sector that require more urgent attention than how much someone is paid.

Secr3t - "There are a lot more problems in the financial sector that require more urgent attention than how much someone is paid."

You are absolutely right. But, unfortunately, we (ie society) are currently blessed (sic) purely with one-trick ponies like Mr Cable who believe that a bit of banker-bashing will solve all ills, and with the hoi polloi who believe (because the Daily Mail and BBC tell them so) that banks caused the last recession notwithstanding evidence and analysis indicating otherwise.

Decisions which put the UK economy and its financial sector back on to a robust footing will not be made while such self-opinionated but fundamentally (ignorant and) flawed perceptions prevail. Which is really rather depressing!

14. At 8:49pm on 29 Jul 2010, Secr3t wrote:
Curbing how much people are paid will not cure or have any effect on preventing another financial crisis.

Try taking a look at the Future of Banking Commission report for a trashing of what you've just written.

It's not about jealousy. It's about competence and greed. I've hardly ever heard anyone begrudge the filthy stinking rich their rewards - when fairly won - e.g. Dyson. But huge rewards for ripping people off, wrecking the global financial system, ruining the economy and businesses etc - that's entirely different. So stop peddling such nonsense.

Tax dodgers are spongers. Whoever they are.

Robert wrote:

"But for other financial firms, shelter from the official scrutiny may be obtained by fleeing to Asia or Wall Street or Switzerland."

------------------------------------------------

If they do in Asia... what they have done here, they will end up being strung up by their closest assets.

They can't 'flee' to Switzerland for two reasons...first, there is not the infrastructure there to accommodate them all (office space, housing and schools)....and two, when they bankrupt Switzerland...there are not enough tax payers there to bail them all out. I am also led to believe that every male Swiss citizen, who as part-time army reservist, has in their possession a sub machine gun.

So, it looks like Wall St and the USA....but I understand that rather a lot of the peasants over there have rather a lot of guns and rifles.

Hobson's choice it is then.

14. At 8:49pm on 29 Jul 2010, Secr3t
Think about all the jobs that are leaving the UK, not just the hedge fund manager paid £x million but the admin staff, the receptionist and the many other staff that are paid an average wage that has just seen the firm they work for relocate to Switzerland or where ever. This doesn't even take into account all the services companies (small IT SME's) and others that provide services to said hedge funds and small financial firms that will now consider relocating.


What?

How many people have been kicked in the guts as a result of the financial activity? If we get rid of them, there will be less victims in the future.

You need to go and do some research. Try googling for scholarly articles that describe the effects on individuals and societies where the there is a massive gulf between the halves and the have nots. If scholarly data isn't your thing then Oliver James has taken the time to put just one aspect in simple clear English accessible to all from the local library.

Once you've finished that, I'm sure WOTW will do a nice job of explaining to you all about economics!

2. At 5:39pm on 29 Jul 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:

You know this is something that I think about every now and again.

We all seem to agree these incomes are damaging to society for a vast number of reasons. But there is no real will among parliamentarians in the west to do anything about it (Blair has his nice, warm, expensive seat at JP Morgan now, for example).

Now if our parliamentarians had no interest in keeping the financial spivs happy, found it distasteful to hang out at their cocktail parties etc, then maybe things would change. Our parliamentarians no longer represent us, not really. They represent the spivs at the party now. So how do we get parliamentarians who represent the best interests of their employers?

I keep been drawn to the idea (which won't ever happen of course!) of a Ghandi Tax! Tax every politician and lobbyist massively. They can make whatever they want, but their lifestyle after tax will never be better than the median person in the UK! If they can only live where we live, eat what we eat and wear what we wear, then they'll begin to identify with us because, let's face it, if you've not got the right suit, then you won't be welcome at the posh parties, will you? Achieve that, and it won't be long until the spivs are taxed all the way back down to earth. MPs know they don't run our country or the world anymore, but when they can no longer pretend... they'll start yanking chains

Here's the bit I keep getting stuck at. What politician is ever going to vote to ensure they are the same as us for life? The only ones I can think of were Tommy Sherridon and the other MSPs of his party who apparently only ever drew the average income and refused the rest.

17. At 10:27pm on 29 Jul 2010, DebtJuggler wrote:
Robert wrote:

"But for other financial firms, shelter from the official scrutiny may be obtained by fleeing to Asia or Wall Street or Switzerland."

------------------------------------------------

If they do in Asia... what they have done here, they will end up being strung up by their closest assets.

They can't 'flee' to Switzerland for two reasons...first, there is not the infrastructure there to accommodate them all (office space, housing and schools)....and two, when they bankrupt Switzerland...there are not enough tax payers there to bail them all out. I am also led to believe that every male Swiss citizen, who as part-time army reservist, has in their possession a sub machine gun.

So, it looks like Wall St and the USA....but I understand that rather a lot of the peasants over there have rather a lot of guns and rifles.

Hobson's choice it is then.


I like that kind if karma! I really do.

But for other financial firms, shelter from the official scrutiny may be obtained by fleeing to Asia or Wall Street or Switzerland.

If this turns out to be the case then Govt needs to ensure by law that no UK institution or individual etc actually invest in them.

We need to drive hedge funds and private equity companies out of business. They create nothing new.

"Many City firms won't like this infringement of what they see as their fundamental right to pay as much as they like to whom they like in whatever way they like."

The financial undustry effectively trashed much of the global eceonomy, and has not earned that "fundmantal right".

"But for other financial firms, shelter from the official scrutiny may be obtained by fleeing to Asia or Wall Street or Switzerland."

Either the public accepts this ongoing threat, or buckles under to every whim from the financial industry. A quote from Liam Halligan in the Telegraph (26th. July):-

..."such is the lobbying power of the big Wall Street institutions that they not only caused a global economic crisis and then forced the US government to pay for a massive bail-out, but then used a slice of that bail-out cash to bribe politicians with campaign donations in order to block rule changes that might prevent a repeat performance.
That leaves the politicians and high-flying bankers happy, of course, while regular citizens – and their children and grandchildren – foot the multi-billion dollar bill.
The principal function of a financial services industry is to link savers with investors and creditors with borrowers, so facilitating broader commercial activity. Such intermediary functions are crucial to economic progress and can be the basis of a profitable and socially useful business.
What we've created, instead, is a group of institutions that between them comprise nothing less than a financial oligarchy".

I notice a lot of people continue to bash the banks-very popular sport but not very wise.
Few seem to realise that the British taxpayer has a huge stake in them - and I for one would like my money back. Also there are many occupations that reward people far too generously and whatever the policy it should apply across the board.

Uphois (6) comments seem sensible- allow them and anyone else earning vast sums of say £300000 plus per year to receive it( no zero's missing) -and then tax these amounts on a tapier up to 95%. As basic taxpayers this helps us -we then pay less tax ourselves!

And so they will scurry around, being chased by the ever increasing, always angrier, populations they have pauperised; having to shelter in ever more vile regimes, to hide their obscenely accumulated theft.
And the day will come when their last bought and paid for government is overthrown by the people who produce and deserve the wealth.
And then, in the words of Marx,
'The last capitalist we hang, shall be the one that sold us the rope'.

16. At 10:05pm on 29 Jul 2010, PacketRat wrote:

Try taking a look at the Future of Banking Commission report for a trashing of what you've just written.

PacketRat you totally missed the point
Actually I have read it and yes I had read it before posting. Only a part of the report actually touches on pay and reward, the rest of the report focuses on the more serious issues and flaws that have developed over the last 10 - 20 years in the banking sector, not only here but most other countries too. Namely poor risk management, poor credit scoring, and loosing focus on there core business. I for one wouldn't even try to attempt to defend Sir Fred and his ideas for growing RBS, I have still to work out what aircraft leasing has to do with the core business of a retail bank. And that isn't even addressing the issues in Investment banking which has its own set of dire issues that need resolving. These are fundamentally more important to resolve if we want to avoid another banking crisis, rather than rushing a popular regulation through on how much people are paid in the finance sector.

18. At 10:32pm on 29 Jul 2010, copperDolomite wrote:

How many people have been kicked in the guts as a result of the financial activity? If we get rid of them, there will be less victims in the future.

Again your missing the point.

What part of regulating how much they earn is going to stop another financial crisis? The point is there is more important regulation that needs doing and more urgently than what we have so far.

Secondly waving small financial institutes and Hedge funds out the door to Switzerland or where ever will not stop the bad practises that have caused this mess, they can still carry on trading with the same practises where ever they are located. Which brings me back to the main point I was making that Wunch clearly picked up on and what is glaringly obvious in the Future of Banking Commission report and many other reports in to the banking crisis, we need more fundamental changes to the system.

What part of this tripe do you believe, simply smoke & mirrors! If not being paid in cash, then shares holders of which at their time of choosing will cash in at the smart time, some will allege clever insider mirrors. Or instead of shares free use of the company jet / holiday hideaway on some tax haven island for all the family, or some £200k boys toy Rollo...........

> Many City firms won't like this infringement of what they see as
> their fundamental right to pay as much as they like to whom they
> like in whatever way they like.

We get waifs and strays from those "City firms" posting here from time to
time and it's clear they haven't yet realized that have to sit in the back and shut up until we can trust them again -- which might be never.

To think of all the trouble they've caused and they still pipe up!

@18 copperDolomite
Nothing like a bit of colateral damage to sort out this mess hey??!!
I usually like your posts and tend to agree wholeheartedly with the majority. However, you are completely missing Secr3t's point i feel.
You seem to advocate research and further reading but i suggest you re-read the post you are referring to.
Only a fool would disagree with you that the bonuses these people are paid need to be stopped but I think the point Secr3t is making is that although the bonuses are a problem they are not THE problem. There are far more pressing matters that need attending to and this bit of regulation just gives the media what they want and gives a failing organisation (The FSA) one last attempt at regaining public support.
I do agree however that WOTW should be left to explain the economics and i am looking forward to reading what he has to say about this whole subject.

The EU's revenge on the investment industry for spotting that many of their number were driving their own economies into bankruptcy.

Perhaps Merkel & Co. are hoping that Asian based fund managers will be more easily persuaded by their rhetoric.

Leaving aside that the EU diretives have nothing to do with economics or reducing risk but simple pure politics - various EU countries hate, with a passion, certain aspects of "anglo saxon" economics, for example the idea that shareholders can sell shares to money grubbing foreigners without first seeking permission from their lords and masters (aka the politicians). The Germans have never forgiven the financial sector for not all understanding why Frankfurt is clearly superior to London and the French, well as the financial sector is based in London, do they really need any other excuse to go on the attack?

But before everyone descends into the farce of collective banker bashing consider this, what the EU is saying is that they want the right to control the amount of wages paid and how they are paid. Suppose the next economic crisis has nothing to do with banking but is (yet another) residential property boom and collapse. Would you be equally happy if the EU told you they would set the price you could sell your house at and they would only allow you to sell it to someone they approved of?

I find the hypocrisy of most of the people in this country, and especially the ranters in here, quite depressing.

Yes, the government, did buy stakes in a few UK banks, yes it does underwrite the value of some of their assets, but will it get that money back? More than likely. If London lost its status as one of the biggest financial centres, would that be a bad thing? Very much so. Would it lose more than the cost of its bailout? Over time, yes.

Taxing and regulating banks and hedge funds, so that they leave the UK, will not stop another global crisis. It is global, therefore a liquidity or credit crunch would impact everyone, no matter where it starts.

I agree there should be a long term element to banking bonuses, but this decision should not be unilateral, therefore making UK finance uncompetitive.

In the end, why should the employees of private organizations be so overly regulated or have 'special' taxes? We live in a capitalist, democratic country where hard work should be rewarded. Yes, we can regulate the banks themselves, so that they hold more capital or have more liquid assets on their book, this will make them more resilient. But, punishing individuals, because it is seen as popular to 'banker-bash', will not fix any underlying problems.

25. At 09:49am on 30 Jul 2010, Secr3t wrote:
16. At 10:05pm on 29 Jul 2010, PacketRat wrote:
Try taking a look at the Future of Banking Commission report for a trashing of what you've just written.
PacketRat you totally missed the point...

So, we're not so far apart then. The issue of pay is related to the issue of the "ownerless" institution, in the report terms. The time that it takes to implement policies is not related to their importance or urgency. I just welcome it as one of many issues that need resolving.

There's a second issue I'd take up with your analysis. If we need to develop our economy with a banking sector that supports a *real* economy, then we need to do real work - make vaccines, develop efficient production methods for Hawk aircraft etc. The jobs you refer to as being lost - these are jobs we need to lose. The downstream activities of what I call *fake* work are also fake work. The resources devoted to fake work need to be realigned to real work. So, the loss of these jobs is beneficial. The tax avoidance expertise, the IT systems used to manipulate the market are of no value to society.

What separates us is really this: the seriousness of the crisis, how radical the solutions need to be and their urgency. If we stumble over a trivial reform, what chance is there of serious reforms e.g. Basel III? I am pessimistic. Johnwilkes may be melodramatic or prescient. Who knows?

As an aside, Wunch's use of the terms hoi polloi, Daily Mail, BBC, self-opinionated and ignorant suggest prejudice. I don't have a telly and never buy a newspaper, but on the other hand I have read the entire three volumes of Adam Smith's work. I feel free to denigrate bankers, but try to avoid doing so to others.

GB in the past proudly meant Great Britain,now is only worth Gambolling Bankers. Not satisfied with ruining the lives of people in Great? Britain the city now wants a trade agreement with India,one hopes the Indian Government has more sense.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

25. At 09:49am on 30 Jul 2010, Secr3t wrote:
"What part of regulating how much they earn is going to stop another financial crisis? The point is there is more important regulation that needs doing and more urgently than what we have so far."

IMHO, you are missing the point. The financial crisis was caused (in part) by a bonus culture which was out of synch with the risks involved. Traders would take on positions which tied the banks up for years; but because at a particular point in time it was shown to be in the money, they got a huge bonus based on a notional, but entirely unrealised profit. When the markets crashed, it was not profits; but huge losses that were realised ... but the traders who had generated those losses (along with their bonuses) were long gone. The bonus culture is fine; as long as it is a reward for generating real money. The FIRST regulatory change I would make is to ensure that bonuses are not paid until profits (or losses) are realised. As for setting maximum wages, I don't think that is for the state to regulate ... however, it IS a matter for the shareholders, since what the bank pays in bonuses, they lose in dividends. Through our pensions, we, the public, actually constitute a significant chunk of banking shareholders ... the trouble is, right now it's not easy to see which banks are delivering us the best value ... so that's the SECOND change I'd make ... banks need to clearly disclose profits from trading activities; and bonuses associated with those profits.

A pay policy! Scarcely Jack Jones is it? The joys of lost times: GBP 10 per week plus 2% announced over the factory tannoy. You felt good until the council increased the rates and then you were broke all over again.

What is really needed is the separation of the retail banks from the casinos, the taxpayer guarantee withdrawn from the casinos, a full audit of the debt-hole and the subsequent liquidation of the casinos.

a) Tough, let them cry.
b) I like the idea of a tax rate of 75% plus to be paid in cash irrespective of how the bonus is paid. Yes they pay in cash for bonus's in Share's etc, etc, It is already done on company cars and heath insurance!
c) If they flee abroad;
c1) All UK assetts are frozen and any taken are subject to legal moves to recover, hence making them unusable
c2) No UK investor may invest in those companies
c3) All UK passports are withdrawn and foreign travel barred for all executives

As you can see I love the Banks and Financial Services Sector!
Our Government is not punishing them suffiently if they had the guts to do that then we would not be discussing this now.

Regards

Kevin

#34

Whilst the BBC is waiting to see if I broke any rules I'll summarise what I said:

The main motivation for those who took risks and told lies was the Billion Pound Bonus Pot.

Remove it and all else will fall into place.

They've been working since June on getting round the regulations.
Plenty of time.
It'll only catch the minnows.
What chance has the EU - they're amateurs compared to the banks.

So the retaliation by insurers, fund managers and hedge funds is to relocate to a more benign location simply to pay large cash bonuses and forego other advantages of being in London/UK?

I think not. As I have pointed out before the labour intensive operational units (middle & back office)of these businesses are probably already elsewhere anyway. So what is going to be moved?

There are plenty of unhappy precedents to show that other locations are not as benign as they may appear at first sight.

# 30. At 11:20am on 30 Jul 2010, Justin150 wrote:

Would you be equally happy if the EU told you they would set the price you could sell your house at and they would only allow you to sell it to someone they approved of?
======================
Good points.

This mushroom still doesn't understand why it takes European Directives to force/help/enable the Government of the UK to protect its own electorate.

Weren't we (UK) supposed to have our own "financial regulator"?

And as for increasing EU intervention and interference...it is only to be expected from an ideological super-state. I expect to see more of the same until the European Union eventually breaks down just like the Soviet Union did. (Which probably will not be in my lifetime.)

Still very puzzled about all this. :(

@ 30. At 11:20am on 30 Jul 2010, Justin150 wrote:

> Would you be equally happy if the EU told you they would set the price
> you could sell your house at and they would only allow you to sell
> it to someone they approved of?

There has been no talk of this whatsoever. Instead of talking about things that are not happening, let's keep the focus on bankers and their disgusting greed that has ruined the Anglo-Saxon way of running the economy.

This is not a fad and it won't go away until we have meted out severe treatment to those who have tried to get a free lunch at our expense.

18. At 10:32pm on 29 Jul 2010, copperDolomite wrote:

How many people have been kicked in the guts as a result of the financial activity? If we get rid of them, there will be less victims in the future.

You need to go and do some research. Try googling for scholarly articles that describe the effects on individuals and societies where the there is a massive gulf between the halves and the have nots. "

So - once all the banks and the rest of the financial industry are gone who is going to pay for all the spongers that this country seems to be rather good at producing by the bucket load? Where is the tax revenue going to come from? Or shall we wage our jealous war first and worry about that later?

24. At 09:04am on 30 Jul 2010, johnwilkes wrote:
And so they will scurry around, being chased by the ever increasing, always angrier, populations they have pauperised; having to shelter in ever more vile regimes, to hide their obscenely accumulated theft.
And the day will come when their last bought and paid for government is overthrown by the people who produce and deserve the wealth.
And then, in the words of Marx,
'The last capitalist we hang, shall be the one that sold us the rope'"

There will be no revolution. This country is too lazy I'm afraid.

Packet your reference to ‘with a banking sector that supports a *real* economy, then we need to do real work - make vaccines, develop efficient production methods for Hawk aircraft etc.’ should leave you almost alone on here as the bashing is aimed, it appears, at all banking staff. I do wish the general rhetoric that flows here would be a bit more specific as I believe there are many services that are supportive of the economy even if hedge funds may not! Now I take Jacque’s advice and go and sit in the corner and shut up.

"Many City firms won't like this infringement of what they see as their fundamental right to pay as much as they like to whom they like in whatever way they like."

Ah freedom eh? - well how about these 'city firms' explain to us clearly where the money comes from to allow them to pay 'whatever they want to whom they like'

...of course they can't - for the truth is it comes from us

This is the bind they're in - their only hiding place is behind the 'stop imposing on my freedom' line - like there is some rule that you should be able to do what you want - without question

What a wonderful world that would be - all happy until someone's freedom impacts on your own (as the credit crunch did) - then it's not so nice and people get angry....

....like this...

https://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0729/breaking2.html

P.s. 33,000 truck drivers - 70% of Greek petrol stations closed. They thought it was all over....

25. At 09:49am on 30 Jul 2010, Secr3t wrote:

No, I'm not missing the point. When one person in the city is making £20 million and the cleaner is making minimum wage, what common values are they likely to share? It's like the difference of reality for us peasants compared to that of the royals. What you've got are two different planets.

Try reading through the research provided in Unjust Rewards: Exposing Greed and Inequality in Britain Today, Polly Toynbee, David Walker

Whacking the salaries/bonuses is just one step of many that need to be taken.

43. At 2:05pm on 30 Jul 2010, SmilingEdBalls wrote:
"So - once all the banks and the rest of the financial industry are gone who is going to pay for all the spongers that this country seems to be rather good at producing by the bucket load? Where is the tax revenue going to come from? Or shall we wage our jealous war first and worry about that later?"


Yep those work shy lazy spongers seem to be increasing by the day. More and more feckless people who seemed determined to be out of work. what was it at last count. 2.5 million? and rising? goodness.

Think of all those jobs they've had to outsource abroad because of the lazy british worker didn't want to work for a dollar a day? and don't get me started on the old people on state pensions! Those lazy surviors of the second world war who had the audacity to actually go and retire! can you imagine it? They'd rather retire when they're old than work until they are dead, meaning the likes of me and you will have to pay for them. gosh!

It might feel good to kick the unemployed during the boom years. But during the worse recession in decades, when more and more hard workers are being put on the scrap heap, isn't cricket mate.

After all. it could be you tomorrow.

43. SmilingEdBalls :


Or was it the spongers in the banking sector you were talking about? I do recall they seemed to be on the receiving end of quite a substantial amount of governmental largess recently. Bailouts and support totaling a cool trillion or so.

and they went and blew most of that gambling in a super casino called the 'markets' and the rest on flash cars and yachts for themselves.

now that’s what i call benefits!

44. At 2:08pm on 30 Jul 2010, SmilingEdBalls wrote:
"There will be no revolution. This country is too lazy I'm afraid."


I'm sure a lot of aristocrats thought that as well in France at the start of the 1780s.

....of course if you are wealthy enough - you have no worries about the law catcing up with you....

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/cyprus/7918866/Judge-grants-Polly-Pecks-Asil-Nadir-bail.html

..now there's a blast from the past - another grand businessman we welcomed into this country and who supported one of our political parties and who alegedly has comitted a crime but did not hang around to face justice - but will now do 'on his terms'

Welcome to Britain, a hideout for war criminals, ex-dictators, international fraudsters, wealthy feudalist royals, institutional paedofile protectors, and non-taxpaying non-doms - hard working low paid immigrants....need not apply.

44. At 2:08pm on 30 Jul 2010, SmilingEdBalls wrote:

"There will be no revolution. This country is too lazy I'm afraid."

2 problems with that....

1) The rest of the world is quite prepared to have a revolution without us - looking at the state of the US at the moment - do you think this 'junior partner' is going to be unaffected when the US breaks down? The US is looking more and more like 1932 every day - long jobless queues, low consumer and business confidence and total lack of faith in the Government to resolve it.

2) It's already started - the media is now just a thin veil of normality covering the true chaos beneath. It's like a tinderbox - just waiting for someone to organise the protest that gives the media it's "revolution pictures" - because the country won't believe it's happening until it sees it on TV.

43. At 2:05pm on 30 Jul 2010, SmilingEdBalls wrote:

'So - once all the banks and the rest of the financial industry are gone who is going to pay for all the spongers that this country seems to be rather good at producing by the bucket load?'

You seem somewhat confused.

It is the BANKS that are spongers!

The finance industry was gone the day Alistair Darling put his hand in my pocket to pay for it.

How much is it the banks are due to give back?... £800 BILLION in 30 months?

Spongers indeed.

Warwick

Apologies,

Pposted before your posts appeared.

46. At 2:27pm on 30 Jul 2010, writingsonthewall wrote:
P.s. 33,000 truck drivers - 70% of Greek petrol stations closed. They thought it was all over....

And Al Jazeera has just told us there are riots in Bangladesh by workers angry over low pay...

AuthurRaffles: #31

Is your bonus tied to this post? You seem to be unable to grasp the harm that the banks have done. You only justify their existence which is not justified at all. Jesus turned over the money-lenders tables in the temple for a reason. There has been no acceptance of responsbilities and no attempts to even help in resolving the problems they created. It remains justifying a self-created bubble that was grounded in fraud and the influencing of elected bodies to insure that nothing was done to prevent what has happened. The many unemployed, the cuts in services and additional taxes are all a result of what the banks have done. The position of the banks is; so what, what are you going to do about it when we own the governments. Let them eat cake does not sit well with the public and this has much more to play out and the punishments due will come at some point in time.

9. At 7:45pm on 29 Jul 2010, watriler wrote:

"Stupefying bonuses reflect the obvious lack of real competition in the market and the ability of these companies to control the market and dictate their margins (and perform acts of gross deception on their clients - large and small). The sector needs supervision not regulation and governance standards backed by statute."

Yes the question to ask is:-

Why are financial institutions able to make such huge profits so easily?

They are purely entrepreneurial. Retail banking does facilitate money transfer and is a valuable service but it is not their only source of profit. They do not produce any physical products. A large part of their profits are obtained by parasitically skimming off value from those who do. Their ability to do so very easily, must have a negative effect on the real economy.

In my opinion it is not a coincidence that the crash occurred a few decades after monetarist policies became the gold standard, and keeping money in very short supply became standard practise. The result was that large volumes of credit became essential.

Banks lowered their reserve ratios thereby increasing the gearing of their capital to take advantage of the strong demand for credit, making huge profits but taking huge risks.

Money has to be a commodity which is in reasonably short supply, but the supply can be too limited. In future banks should be required to return to traditional reserve ratios of around 12%, allowing the money supply to be increased to provide the liquidity market capitalism needs, without risking serious inflation.

"it may in practice allow some firms to breach the pay restrictions, if those firms are not regarded as big enough or important enough to pose dangers to the stability of the financial system."

I should think so to!

If a firm is not big enough or important enough for its failure to affect the stability of the financial system, then what business is it of the EU's or the FSA's how foolish it is with its remuneration policy? If such a firm fails, all the investors lose their money. But if the firm is small enough that its failure doesn't reverberate through the economy and affect all of us on the outside then so what? Let it fail.

45. At 2:16pm on 30 Jul 2010, DaggaRooker wrote:
Packet ... the bashing is aimed, it appears, at all banking staff ...

I have sympathy for a lot of the people who work in banking. One day the edict comes down from the top: Sell (i.e. mis-sell) product X at the rate of Y per week and we'll pay you Z if you do it and fire you if you don't. What do you do? Go home and tell the husband/wife and kids we've got to sell the house and live in a tent? But Jacques has a point. Banking could be automated more. He just tells it like it is.

Gets a bit hot in here at times. Take care!

43. At 2:05pm on 30 Jul 2010, SmilingEdBalls wrote:

Spongers?

You mean the victims of the silly economics we've been following for the last 30 years? Like the system we now have where yet another crop of graduates who are working for no pay watsover to 'get experience'. Corporate spongers, more like!


Have you really built your own road all the way to work, or did you sponge off the one we all paid for? Tut tut.

If you don't want people on the dole, then why don't YOU give them a job rather than slagging off those who aren't as lucky as yourself rather than whinging and complaining about the vulnerable? Remember, 'There go I but for the grace..'

PS

Heard there may be a road haulage strike in the run up to Christmas, because those drivers don't like the changes to employment contracts they're having put to them by the bosses! I expect to hear calls of 'those lazy workers, I can't get my turkey!' soon enough.

Methinks it's time to wheel out Cedric the pig again - though what to call him this time around.....

Perhaps he could be given the Moniker "The City" ?

59. At 4:41pm on 30 Jul 2010, PacketRat
45. At 2:16pm on 30 Jul 2010, DaggaRooker

I say, if you hang around with pigs don't be surprised if you get covered with sheet.
The anger is amplified by greed and opulence - so low paid desk jockeys have no fear - they're on the ground floor and will be able to escape when the banks catch fire.

It's those in the ivory towers who need to be concerned...

WOTW...

Hello, I normally read your comments with much interest/humour/horror/salt.
(delete as necessary)
please don't get me wrong - I think you have many valid points

However I should probably point out that there WAS a protest in the City of London today...
Something about Smashing Capitalism and coputlating with the Police!?!?!?!

As to whether it makes the news or not... I'm just a spectator

I work for a bank as middle management and moved to the US about a year ago (previously lived whole life in UK). A major reason was the increase in the top rate of tax to 50% - Why would I stay in a country and pay an extra 30,000 in taxes a year? I didn't make a fuss about it or write to the papers I just packed up my family sold my house and moved.

I'm sure plenty of people are full of hot air and will never go but I know lots are doing as I do. Others also might not go straight away but will wait until it's a good time for their family with regard to schooling etc. and then will move over the next few years. These jobs are largely not replaced, banking is a global business and it doesn't matter whether you are in an office in London or New York.

If it is worth while for me to move continents then it certainly is for the top earners. As has been said previously a lot of people would say good riddance, but that deficit still needs to be paid back somehow and the less high earners there are the harder that will be.

grrr dsylisxa!!!!!

" 42. At 1:55pm on 30 Jul 2010, Jacques Cartier wrote:
@ 30. At 11:20am on 30 Jul 2010, Justin150 wrote:

> Would you be equally happy if the EU told you they would set the price
> you could sell your house at and they would only allow you to sell
> it to someone they approved of?

There has been no talk of this whatsoever. Instead of talking about things that are not happening, let's keep the focus on bankers and their disgusting greed that has ruined the Anglo-Saxon way of running the economy."

I think you missed Justin150's point. I'm pretty certain it was an analogy, presented in terms probably more familiar to most people, to illustrate just how great a level of interference pay regulation is.

The point being that, before deciding that such a far-reaching level of interference is to be welcomed, it's rather important to consider *all* the potential consequences, not just the immediate ones that you might happen to like.

You suggest dismissing the hypothetical and just focusing on the bankers. Justin150's post was precisely to point out the dangers of that.

64. At 5:03pm on 30 Jul 2010, BrileyLoucan

So you make a mess and when you have to pay, you leg it leaving your mess to nameless others. And you leave to go and work in a country falling apart! It isn't a bank in Detroit you're working in now is it? Bankrupt Arizona? I applaud your high ethics and sense of responsibility, not to mention your ability to pick a winner. New York drowning in high male-of-colour unemployment?

64.BrileyLoucan:


What it boils down to is really, whether you think the poor should be paying for the mistakes of the rich.

in your case you decided that you didn't want to contribute to cleaning up the mess that the City made (which as middle management in a bank, you were a part of), so you have left, leaving others to foot your share of the bill.

and your point is? That if we continue to clamp down on excessive pay, we will simply expose even more selfish and greedy folk who don't want to face their responsibilities, therefore driving them away from our shores forever?

is that supposed to be a bad thing?

#64 BrileyLoucan

Good riddance is impolite and better directed to those that sneer. You don't express a view about the merits of the banks in their present form. If they have become counterproductive and unsustainable, then they cannot survive and must be reformed. I'd prefer to "accelerate the discovery process" (as some say) on the basis that it is better to come off a dependency sooner rather than later. Sure, it's going to hurt. Was that your point?

Whether I was part of the mess is questionable along with 99% of people who work for banks, but I worked in the system so am prepared to accept more responsibility than someone working for Tesco's. I would actually argue that I am working to sort out the mess (I work in financial regulation) - but I am not paying the UK governments higher taxes to pay for years of economic mismanagement.

I applaud your high morals and am glad that the UK will be a better country when all selfish and greedy people are driven from its shores. But it cannot be a surprise to anyone that banker's and other "excessively" paid are motivated by money and therefore will respond to higher taxation by leaving. I wonder whether you will still feel this way when the tax burden falls to those stoic heroes who are selfless and generous or the public services the excessively paid were subsidising are cut.

I wasn't actually trying to justify the morals for staying or going just the fact (in my view) that curbs on pay would have an impact and this would be counterproductive to the long run financial security of the UK.

70. At 5:49pm on 30 Jul 2010, BrileyLoucan wrote:
this would be counterproductive to the long run financial security of the UK.

Ah, the answer to my question. You think that your continuing presence would have benefited us. It's a risk I'm prepared to accept.

Every industry I have known which has been good to work in, that is the wages and salaries are good, business just falls in the door, profits are high and so on, has eventually blown up as the growth curve was unsustainable.

When is this going to happen to banking? It stands to reason the good times are not forever: nothing is forever! In the end the gravity prevails.

Bankers may very well feel that at the moment they have a license to print money. But for how long? They have managed to ruin the US and the UK economy, push a number of European countries to the edge of catastrophe and seriously damage global development. How long do they actually think that people will consider them worth all that money? For how long will they be valued?

70. BrileyLoucan:
"I wonder whether you will still feel this way when the tax burden falls to those stoic heroes who are selfless and generous or the public services the excessively paid were subsidising are cut."


The British have survived two world wars and kept their dignity. I'm sure we can survive the absence of a few greedy bankers who can't face responsibility.

I am no socialist - but I have to question an economic system that rewards people in the financial sector so lavishly, whilst those that teach our next generation are paid abysmally in comparision (and no - I am not a teacher myself, nor do I have any relatives/friends in the profession)

In Bill Bryson's excellent book about travelling throughout Europe before the Iron-Curtain fell - "Neither Here Nor There" - whilst travelling in one of the Eatern European communist states he lamented that it was profouindly sad that the only econominic system that seemed to work was one based entirely upon self-interest and greed

I can only say a loud AMEN.....

70. BrileyLoucan wrote:
I would actually argue that I am working to sort out the mess (I work in financial regulation) - but I am not paying the UK governments higher taxes to pay for years of economic mismanagement.

Isn't the theory that the higher taxes are a direct result of your regulation not previously preventing this disaster - and are to be used, in the main, to try to clear it up? (It's a flawed theory, but that's another matter).

Therefore 67. copperDolomite's first sentence is bang on. By leaving, you are avoiding your responsibilities, and we who remain pick up the tab for your incompetence.

70. At 5:49pm on 30 Jul 2010, BrileyLoucan

See that's the point, you want society to throw out their moral compass in order to fix the mess. Well the greater majority of this society say you should get some morals and pay for, fix the mess, learn your lesson and don't do it again.

You by refusing to pay higher taxes are refusing to participate in the collective effort to ensure that those your industry hurt have a roof over their head and food in their bellies. People are losing their jobs, the homes, their health and their dignity.

It's like the wee boy smashing the old ladies window and running away expecting the council to fix the glass. Its like an oil company leaking and running off!

Rise high my friend. The peasants will be making pins to burst balloons in no time at all. And granny will make use of those shard of broken glass when she gets over the fright.

Well as usual, these discussions seem to be dominated by bank-bashers who have firmly decided "the greedy bankers", whoever they are, were responsible for every bit of ill that happens in the country. It is probably a waste of breath to contradict them as their minds seem totally made up, but if there are any readers who actually come on here to think about things, you might want to consider what I'm saying.

1) People keep claiming that investment banking activities (for example) add no value to society. Presumably they mean no value other than the money they make for their employees. If you despise money and capitalism totally this might look to you like no value, but within our society at large, money is one kind of value which cannot just be brushed aside. If you want to replace money let's hear how you intend to do so. Otherwise stop telling people that earning money is intrinsically worthless.

If, however, you accept that money does have some value, you might still think that some bankers (and others) earn "too much" and the money they are paid could provide more value or better value if spent in other ways. However, that is surely a problem with capitalism as a whole, where pay is set by the market rather than by any other notion of the value of the work done. Capitalism is constructed to increase monetary value but only any other kind of value as a kind of side-effect in cases where what people pay reflects how they value things. It is better at increasing some kinds of value therefore than others. It fails in situations prone to the tragedy of the commons, or any situation where everyone values something but nobody wants to pay for them or take any other action to preserve them.

The question I struggle with (and in reality all politicians must struggle with at some stage) is whether the value of money can be interchanged in any reasonable way with other types of value which people have. It isn't even clear to what extent people share values (they certainly don't share all values) so this is a very difficult question to answer.

However, the FSA rules are not overtly anything to do with this: they claim to be an attempt to force the alignment of pay policy with shareholders' long term interests, i.e. stable company growth.

2) You've stereotyped bankers, in your extreme negative generalisations about their behaviours. Similar comments about any profession (equating everyone with what you consider the worst from that profession) would be regarded as insulting and ridiculous. Of course, some people do the same for "public sector workers" and all sorts of things, but none of it is right.

3) This directive affects far more than banks. I suspect it affects companies who could never threaten the stability of the economy as a whole.

Will the last leech to leave the Square Mile please turn out the lights.

Good riddance to criminal scum.

76. At 7:08pm on 30 Jul 2010, copperDolomite wrote:

"See that's the point, you want society to throw out their moral compass in order to fix the mess. Well the greater majority of this society say you should get some morals and pay for, fix the mess, learn your lesson and don't do it again."

I don't disagree with this in principal, though I feel the matter is grossly oversimplified as is always the case when looking for someone to blame. How can any one quantify what one individuals responsibility is for the mess? Who is more to blame - a banker not responsible for losses but part of a system, an FSA employee who's job it was to regulate the banks, a householder who took advantage of cheap credit they couldn't afford. It is way above my intellectual capacity to work out this particular blame game.

I guess I'm just trying to be a realist - you may want people you deem to be responsible for the mess to pay for it and learn their lesson but the reality is a large number of those people will just say "up yours, I'm off". This may well disgust/disappoint/bring about murderous feelings in a large proportion of the population but it isn't going to fix the mess. Maybe it is better to do this than to hold your nose and work with these parasites (I salute your principles), but surely it is better to be fully appraised of the consequences than to be surprised by increased taxes further down the line.

As for granny fighting back - unlikely...

#70. At 5:49pm on 30 Jul 2010, BrileyLoucan wrote:

"I wasn't actually trying to justify the morals for staying or going just the fact (in my view) that curbs on pay would have an impact and this would be counterproductive to the long run financial security of the UK."

Am I missing something, what financial security is that. Surely not the same financial security that needed bailing out to the tune of £200Billion to prevent 60% of the UK's mortgage loans being called in leaving over half the population on the streets. I'll miss that security no end.

#77. dan10101

I worked for a bank for 22 years, believe me they deserve every bit of scorn they get. In 1979 a very learned banking colleague said to me "You do realise we're the parasites of the free world..." I was shocked and somewhat insulted at his statement, a raw kid in a safe job during the winter of discontent learning a noble trade. How naive I was.

There are so many good things about this news that it's hard to know where to start.

1. The EU is starting to act on behalf of it's citizens not just it's big corporations. An example I think and hope to it's member governments. In the same way that enlightened employment law has stemmed from the EU.

2. The very fact that the EU is acting in concert AND that the EU is and will remain a major trading bloc reduces the bankers cry that they will move to avoid it to the sham it is. There isn't enough space for you all in Monacco or Switzerland. And just think for a while ... how long do you think their anachronistic ways will last - not enough for your heirs I can promise you.

3. It flushes out the bankers secondary cry that the rest of the UK population are just 'banker bashers'. You, know, about 60M of us have this irrational phobia. Hmmm. No, what the 'rest of us' are saying to the bankers is the opposite: Come and join the vast majority of the rest of us in doing a responsible job, reasonably paid and with regulations attached that are aimed to protect the common good. So, it's an inclusive directive.

4. Looking to the future it's another way of pointing the EU to where it needs to be: a genuine wealth creator AND a protector of working people's rights.

I work for an investment bank and have a balanced view, and yes, something is very wrong with the system, I wish I could put my finger on exactly what it is, but it is much deeper than pay, although that is also a big problem. When I'm older and hopefully wiser maybe I'll write a book about it.

79. At 7:38pm on 30 Jul 2010, BrileyLoucan wrote:

I don't disagree with this in principal, though I feel the matter is grossly oversimplified as is always the case when looking for someone to blame.

But you've just said you lack the intellectual.... and you're not man enough to stick with your principal.

We've hammered this out since Northern Rock, how long ago was that? For a middle level guy in the banking industry, you aren't up to date with current knowledge and understanding are you?


How can any one quantify what one individuals responsibility is for the mess? Who is more to blame - a banker not responsible for losses but part of a system,

Like the mafioso thug isn't responsible.?
What soldier will have a sufficent defense of 'I was only following orders'?

an FSA employee who's job it was to regulate the banks

Guitly as charged. They didn't do their job.


a householder who took advantage of cheap credit they couldn't afford.

Sorry, don't banks hire people to assess the risk of lending to each applicant? If not, what exactly do the bankers get paid to do giving the householder is now being blamed for not being an expert in finance while those in banking, who are professionally employed seem to think they can get paid for doing, what, pricesly?

It is way above my intellectual capacity to work out this particular blame game.

I know.
Toynbee, Walker and the professional research team couldn't find a banker who was able to come closely to saying what the average salary in the UK was. and most of them couldn't understand how their school class mates could survive on such paltry amounts.

You may want people you deem to be responsible for the mess to pay for it and learn their lesson
It is called justice. You know, that industry that employs police, lawyers, judges etc. Darn, we're about o make them redundant to paay for the mess the bankers ran away and left behind!

As for granny fighting back - unlikely...
Let me see.
Block vote.
I guess I'm just trying to be a realist Kids and grand kids returning home because they've no job, no welfare and no money. Think she's going to be happy to deal with the Happy families Christmas get-together every day of the week?
No, and the free bus pass will be taken away so whe won't even be able to afford to go anywhere for peace and quiet.
No longer able to see her grandkids because let's say for example one of those 2000 people employed by Astra Zenica, say the research scientist daughter, has been paid off, but been lucky enough to find a position in Singapore, and she's taken her family... and all because the bankers got greedy..

Cancelled cataract ops, cancelled hip replacements...


Yeah, I think they'll be fighting back. Spark. Haystack. Whoosh.

The bank-bashers seem to be out in force again! Which is fair enough - freedom of speech is something I value hugely, and I think it is extremely useful to give such views an airing on a forum such as the esteemed Mr Peston's blog, about which - let's be honest - no-one in the real world gives a monkey's.

I spent an ordinary day today working out could I survive without my bank. I don't have any great respect for my bank, it annoys me intensely at times and every so often makes errors which I think even a 5-year old wouldn't regard as being acceptable. But on the other hand it safely ensured that my salary was transferred from my employer to my account today; which I could check had happened because it provides me with internet banking and with an SMS message to my mobile phone; and I was then able to go to an ATM machine and withdraw cash for my lunchtime pint with colleagues. It will shortly send me a paper statement to confirm these transactions. & a new cheque book will be on its way to me soon because its IT recognises before I do that I've only a few cheques left. It will also be mailing to me some foreign currency for my holiday next week, and has noted on its computer systems that my debot card might be used in shops and at ATMs overseas for the next fortnight but that this is me having a good time partaking of Spanish rioja, not some fraudster running amok. I will return from holiday and drive my car (bought using a bank loan) back from the airport to my house (bought using a bank mortgage), and then I will go back to work (on a train financed by bank lending, with my season ticket bought via my credit card) where my employer will again pay my salary into my bank account so I can again go to an ATM to take out cash for a lunchtime pint.

My point - I might not list my bank as being "best buddy", but I sure as hell am grateful for what it does because I know my life would be hugely poorer and hugely less efficient and convenient without it. & much of the above I don't actually pay for - apart from in terms of interest rates being higher on my debt and lower on my savings than I would ideally like, but if not having better interest pays for the massive infrastructure which I can only imagine exists to support these sort of transactions then I sort of feel it's worth it. I couldn't do it all by myself, or by clubbing together with a few mates. And I'm also conscious that the cost of this infrastructure has also been carried by cross-subsidising profits earned from the investment banking arms of these same banks. OK - I'm not happy with casino banking personally, its recent bad points being very very bad, but in good times I see that it might well have helped pay for the credit cards and ATMs etc that I use all the time.

Does that mean I regard the banks as faultless for the problems of he last few years. No - far from it. They have contributed hugely. But so have politicians, who have been elected off the back of the feel-good factor of cheap credit and easy money the banks have delivered for them. And regulators have contributed too, who claim to have fought my corner by spending millions of £s and man-hours investigating sales of PPI and overdraft charges, and yet have missed regulating the flawed balance sheets and the creaking operating models of some (not all: you know who you are, RBS, Northen Rock, Bradford & Bingle, etc) of these banks who pushed the boundaries too far. Talk about finger in the hole in the damn while ignoring the enormous cracks through which water was pouring - the FSA, now there is an area where I wonder what the flickety-fluck has that been doing! And also to blame - society which has adopted "I want it now, so I'll have it now" consumerism which banks have found creative ways of accommodating with long- medium- and short-term credit in amounts and at prices which all have been able to access.

So, I find it difficult to get on my moral high-horse about banks and bankers for the simple reason that they provide many convenient and efficient tools to my life. I remember these same banks before ATMs, before credit cards, before internet banking, before global IT systems, etc etc. They are still infuriating and arrogant beasts, but I wouldn't like to return to the 1960s and 70s which is what the bank-bashers would seem to prefer.

But fortunately the bank-bashers won't get their way: their voices may be loud and regular on Mr Peston's blog, but that's as far as it goes - thank heavens! So, keep pontificating on here - fortunately, only the regular Peston bloggers are reading and listening!

At 9:14pm on 30 Jul 2010, copperDolomite wrote:

'But you've just said you lack the intellectual.... and you're not man enough to stick with your principal.

We've hammered this out since Northern Rock, how long ago was that? For a middle level guy in the banking industry, you aren't up to date with current knowledge and understanding are you?'


CD, I'm a respecter of your comments and share many of your views.

All I would politely ask is we, who try for better, try also to win some hearts and minds.

Financial services covers so many decent, unbonussed people who work dilligently. They are not 'Bankers' in my book. Nor are they private equity asset strippers and nor are they industrialists who's only interest is to sell your knowledge and your job to China/India so they can personally become richer.

Everyday I see people in the factory where I am a director work so very hard. And I thank my lucky stars (and take a small pay cheque) because beyond what my immediate family and I need, our society needs to feel good about itself.

Please let's go for the over lauded 'winners'. Whether it's Sir F. Greedie or Sir Dig-a-hole Jones.

85. At 9:35pm on 30 Jul 2010, Wunch wrote:
I spent an ordinary day today working out could I survive without my bank.
-----------------------------------
I and many others no longer need a bank. I pay no tax. I receive no benefits. I have no job. I have no money ergo I need no bank.
The rest of my circumstances are nobodys' business but for an increasing proportion of the population all is not what seems normal in "society", big or otherwise.

85. At 9:35pm on 30 Jul 2010, Wunch wrote:

'But fortunately the bank-bashers won't get their way: their voices may be loud and regular on Mr Peston's blog, but that's as far as it goes - thank heavens!'

Oh dear, your message was going OK till then. A bit verbose but essentially reasonable.

Please read my prior posts and those of many others to explain why providing you and me with a cheque book and ATM does not justify Banker salaries an order of magnitude higher than the leader of any Western nation.

C'mon spot the trend!!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

# 86. At 9:43pm on 30 Jul 2010, LostatHome wrote:

"Financial services covers so many decent, unbonussed people who work dilligently. They are not 'Bankers' in my book. Nor are they private equity asset strippers and nor are they industrialists who's only interest is to sell your knowledge and your job to China/India so they can personally become richer."

This I wholeheartedly agree with, the problem lies with speculators, wheelers, dealers and executives. I would say however the "get rich quick" philosophy was also evident in the management of retail banking with target driven bonus structures although these bonuses were insignificant by comparison to what we're discussing on here. However even this bonus structure drove them to take inappropriate risks underwriting loans and credit facilities.

Back to the front line workforce, when I left in 2001 there were senior clerical underwriters and advisers earning less than £15k and bonuses amounted to around 6% - 7% of salary. You can guess what bonuses were paid to middle and senior management with salary increments being considerable above clerical grades. Why did I leave? Now let me think?

86. At 9:43pm on 30 Jul 2010, LostatHome wrote:
At 9:14pm on 30 Jul 2010, copperDolomite wrote:

CD, I'm a respecter of your comments and share many of your views.

All I would politely ask is we, who try for better, try also to win some hearts and minds.

Hearts and Minds have a place. If I sound rude, I apologise. I am angry. Very angry at what has been going on and furious as I think about the future we all face. Thanks to the bankers, those who have or threaten to leave after creating this mess deserve no respect in IMHO, and will get none. Here's why.

I barely remember a night when I was at secondary school when my dad didn't smack my mother around. When I was 16 I left school and within a couple of months I had a job in a local factory. My dreams of a career, or learning were gone. So I thought. I wanted to run and never return but I couldn't leave my mum and sister. Sometimes when faced with the three of us, he'd leave mum alone. Sometimes he'd attack us all. I remember going to the factory one day. It was the summer and the Faklands war was in progress (my brother had legged it and joined up to escape), and there was I being questioned by the women in the factory about the bruises and I was lying, just like my mum had been doing for years.

I'd been made redundant ('80s recession and still only 16 years old) by the end of that summer and my dad was becoming ever more violent. But my mum had plucked up the courage to finally walk away from her marriage and we went with her. My mum was a mess, emotionaly, physically and physcologically. And it was frightening. We didn't know where we'd end up, or even if we could stay together. we'd no idea what was going to happen to us all from one day to the next, and all the time we were frightened that he'd find us. But the local council had the money to give us refuge in a B&B (if you've not been in such a bad way, you'll think that was awful, but for us at that time it was a heavenly safe place) and the government had the money and the political will to make that escape financially possible. After maybe 5 months we had a council house, the social security gave us money for beds, a second hand cooker, some bits of furniture, cutlery, pots and pans etc. And we had money to pay for food and electricity. We even had money for birthday cards and a pair of gloves each for Christmas that winter in the B&B. It's not much, but one little present made us feel human, still part of the world. That wouldn't happen, not on the soon to be cut £65 a week, not now. Instead, we'd be labelled as lazy good-for-nothing spongers.

Now if that was happening now, with all the excuses the Conservative government needs to make their ideological cuts, how on earth would we have survived? The answer is we could go out into the rain, facing the cold and hunger and whatever dangers are out there (that'll make you employable, that!) or we could have stayed. I'm convinced we'd have been dead by Christmas if we'd stayed.

How many women are now going to be trapped in a hell like that, for the sake of ideology and greed? Right now, if my marriage was like that, I'd have no way of escaping. I wouldn't be given a safe place to stay (I've no kids), and how long is the council waiting list? Running away from home almost always means you've no money and need to give up your job if you have one so a deposit and rent in the private sector are out of the question.

The whole thing is stomach churningly, pathetically disgusting. People aren't grasping the reality of what the bankers, the financiers and the politics we've had over the past few decades is resulting in. It's horrifying.

How many people are going to be going out to work for bosses who put their lives in danger, who bully them into ill health because we no longer have a safety net worth talking about, so they can't walk away (take a look at the working conditions and employment practices in the Virginia mines that had that terrible disaster earlier this year).

How many people are going to lose their homes because they got ill, maybe put their back out or develop something that takes a few months to sort out? Or made redundant? Because benefits don't cover the roof over your head these days. Remember a home is full of memories, photos, knick-knacks, pride, self-respect, a sense of achievement and everything you've worked your life for. It'll be exchanged for isolation, shame and a sense of failure. Are people going to start selling their wardrobes, carpets and light shades to pay the rent? All because the bankers just can't have enough.

Thanks to the bankers people are losing it all. All of it gone. That is not only heartbreaking it causes stress, depression (so you're not likely to be fit for any new job that might come your way).

By the way, my mum slowly built her confidence up got a job and worked away in peace and quiet with fine health and lots of laughter, something I don't remember her doing when I was growing up, helping me through honours and higher degrees, my sister has settled and had some kids as has my brother. And we were finally safe. We learned not to be frightened in our own home any more. She's happy and safe.

None of that, none of that would have been possible if we lived in the world the bankers would have us.

Win hearts and minds? I'm too disgusted to even try. I'm too worried about the middle-aged woman or the 50-year-old guy selling the curtains from their windows in exchange for a stew dinner.

86. At 9:43pm on 30 Jul 2010, LostatHome wrote:

PS

When 'bankers' is used around here, it doesn't refer to the bank clerk - we know they get paid a pittance. The banks rake in so much yet, they have the government subidise the wages of the bank clerks in the form of tax credits. Same idea of the 'bosses'. My boss in the factory job I mentioned in the previous post made next to nothing in his factory, and worked till he just about dropped, because he knew he was employing people who needed the money to put food on the table. Bosses around here normally refer to the golf-club crowd who think they are poor on just a paltry half a million a year!

£7billion a year skimmed off our savings
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/savings/7919778/7billion-a-year-skimmed-off-our-savings.html

More than £7.3billion a year is being “skimmed off” the value of Britons’ savings by City bankers and fund managers, an investigation by The Daily Telegraph has found.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#85 Wunch wrote:

'they provide many convenient and efficient tools to my life'

really.

'where my employer will again pay my salary into my bank account so I can again go to an ATM to take out cash for a lunchtime pint'

My employer used to pay me in cash (in the pub on a friday afternoon) so I didn't have to go out of my way to use a cashpoint to get use of my money.

Speaking of cashpoints, do you think that your bank would actually be providing a cashpoint if it wasn't for a nationally owned bank called National Giro, this bank, owned and paid for by all of us caused such a stir in traditional banking circles that it was emasculated and sold off to the Alliance & Leicester (now part of Santander)

Every interaction you have with a bank costs you money whether it is the visible up front charge on your forex transaction or the invisible charge on a dozen eggs that you pay in cash for at your supermarket, the bank takes their cut. Every financial transaction you make involves a bit of a topslice for the bank.

The banking system is so interweaved with modern life that when a little crisis hit their industry the government had no alternative but to use your money to bail them out.

The Private banks ability to create money out of thin air and gain the benefit of all interest accrued is the source of all their profit.
They create money in the form of debt and when they create too much debt (ie. become so profitable that by all known measures the bonuses are obscene) that they are on the verge of collapse then they come cap in hand to the very people who have been paying all that interest on all that money they created from nothing for an interest free grant so that they can carry on paying the bonuses and charging the interest and fees.

And the best bit for them is that even after paying the charges and the slightly higher prices and the extra taxes to bail them out and receive the lower services you come on here and defend them.
Bizarre.

70. At 5:49pm on 30 Jul 2010, BrileyLoucan wrote:

I wasn't actually trying to justify the morals for staying or going just the fact (in my view) that curbs on pay would have an impact and this would be counterproductive to the long run financial security of the UK.


You're assuming that pay is directly proportional to ability and value.

If you're wrong then all that's happening is that a small B Ark is setting sail. We'll just have to learn to live without the telephone sanitizers.

Five million public sector workers are having their pay constrained (two year pay freeze), pension levys and structural reforms that radically reduce pay. These people did nothing wrong and dud not contribute to a financial crisis.

It cannot be right that the overpaid city workers who actually caused the crisis do not help pay.

If ( more like when) there is another financial crisis there will be anarchy. Bankers will be lynched in the streets if they have not moderated their pay down to a level that isn't excessive eg less than the prime ministers pay.

It is no use saying public sector workers are paid with taxpayers money as it is obvious that so are bankers

#91 copperDolomite

I like a fighter well done, more power to you and yours.

The essence of your post is that the state shouldn't abandon those who need help they must be given support and security and a chance to rebuild their lives. How can anyone disagree with that, it is fundamental and core to a proper civilised society. Unfortunately the coalition have already shown that they find the needy and vulnerable a burden, take ASBO's for instance. Yes there is much debate about their effectiveness but to turn round to vulnerable communitites and say take control of the situation yourselves because we're withdrawing ASBO's is beyond comprehension to me. If they could take control don't these idiots in government think they would have done so already, there have been deaths when trying to do so.

While bankers lap it up the vulnerable remain frightened, what the hell is going on? This isn't right or moral, sometimes I think revolution not evolution is the only way but I'm generally a pacifist, it goes with my political belief but something has got to give and it doesn't look like being the bankers or coalition.

In 410AD emperor Honorious said to the people of Britain "Look unto yourselves for your defence" after they appealed to Rome for help in the face of Saxon raids in the south. We all know what happened after that, the Saxons gradually took control and we entered the dark ages. As I've said before I fear for this country.

CD, I share your anger, sometimes I find it difficult to contain my rage when I talking to some but I'm not going to blow up and stoop to their level.

Five million public sector workers are having their pay constrained (two year pay freeze), pension levys and structural reforms that radically reduce pay. These people did nothing wrong and dud not contribute to a financial crisis.

Are you suggesting none of them overpaid for their house/flat, didn't buy a flat screen TV, bought lots of trendy clothes on credit or went overseas for a holiday?

Fact is that in order to create a financial crisis you need two things. Banks that overlend for the wrong things and a naive public that do the borrowing.

91. At 11:43pm on 30 Jul 2010, copperDolomite wrote:

Ok to summarise you are angry, because your family was on benefit, you are on benefit, your kids (if any) will probably be on benefit...and you find it disgusting that other people (public) do not want to pay for you? I am really glad that you raised the issue of spongers in your previous posts!

And maybe one more thing being angry does not mean to be plain stupid all the time!