Re Occupy the Stock Exchange

spen666

Anyone else think
1. Smash the system ( or even cistern)
or
2. Let the dirty unwashed get a job instead of expecting everything on a plate

asprilla

"I'm here because I'm sick and tired of all the greed that stops me from getting what I want."

rick_chasey

spen666 wrote:

2. Let the dirty unwashed get a job instead of expecting everything on a plate

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/ ... RH20111012

http://www.fxstreet.com/fundamental/ana ... /10/12/02/

http://www.sharecast.com/cgi-bin/sharec ... id=4579834

Yeah yeah.

rick_chasey

They have a point. FS has a stranglehold on the gov't and the economy, and it creates problems.

I saw the other day (US figures) noting that Managers and Doctors were by far and away the biggest proportion of the top "1%", with people in FS coming a distant third. The issue isn't necessarily with high earners per-say, but with FS.

Agent57

If, say, Greece owes Germany money, and Germany owes Spain money, and Spain owes Germany money, and the UK owes France money, and Italy owes Portugal money, and Portugal owes Germany money, and Ireland owes the UK money, etc. etc., can't they all work out some deal whereby debts are cancelled out and transferred?

I mean, if Germany owes Spain €2B and Spain owes Germany €5B, can't that just be reduced to Spain owing Germany €3B? And if Germany owes Spain €2B, but Spain owes Italy €2B, can that just be reduced to Germany oweing Italy €2B?

Hypothetical numbers and national debts, of course, but in principle, why isn't that an option?

sketchley

Agent57 wrote:

If, say, Greece owes Germany money, and Germany owes Spain money, and Spain owes Germany money, and the UK owes France money, and Italy owes Portugal money, and Portugal owes Germany money, and Ireland owes the UK money, etc. etc., can't they all work out some deal whereby debts are cancelled out and transferred?

I mean, if Germany owes Spain €2B and Spain owes Germany €5B, can't that just be reduced to Spain owing Germany €3B? And if Germany owes Spain €2B, but Spain owes Italy €2B, can that just be reduced to Germany oweing Italy €2B?

Hypothetical numbers and national debts, of course, but in principle, why isn't that an option?

Because. The Greek government owes the Germany Banks, the German Government owes the Spanish banks, etc etc etc. The banks are not owned by the governments they are owned by shareholders who have invested, often you and me in pension fund.

One option would be to nationalise all the banks across Europe and transfer their asset to government so they can then cancel out the debts, but the net effect is likely to be the loss of investments, pensions and savings by everyone.

rick_chasey

Sketchley wrote:

Agent57 wrote:

If, say, Greece owes Germany money, and Germany owes Spain money, and Spain owes Germany money, and the UK owes France money, and Italy owes Portugal money, and Portugal owes Germany money, and Ireland owes the UK money, etc. etc., can't they all work out some deal whereby debts are cancelled out and transferred?

I mean, if Germany owes Spain €2B and Spain owes Germany €5B, can't that just be reduced to Spain owing Germany €3B? And if Germany owes Spain €2B, but Spain owes Italy €2B, can that just be reduced to Germany oweing Italy €2B?

Hypothetical numbers and national debts, of course, but in principle, why isn't that an option?

Because. The Greek government owes the Germany Banks, the German Government owes the Spanish banks, etc etc etc. The banks are not owned by the governments they are owned by shareholders who have invested, often you and me in pension fund.

One option would be to nationalise all the banks across Europe and transfer their asset to government so they can then cancel out the debts, but the net effect is likely to be the loss of investments, pensions and savings by everyone.

Not sure many gov'ts can afford to nationalise the entire banking system.

Not that they would want to anyway.

It's a sovereign debt crisis > it's not to do with who owes who. It's about gov'ts running such high debts that it's entirely possible they will be unable to repay the borrowing.

rick_chasey

Having said all that, occupy *insert well known financial area/road*, isn't really about sovereign debt, but about the FS imbalance in the economy.

gtvlusso

Couple of points:

1, FS is simply bigger and more powerful than government, yet one cannot survive withiout the other.

2, We are all under the squeeze, except the super wealthy.

Although I am upset to see some senior execs being rewarded for abject failure, there are allot of directors out there who are steering a sinking ship as best they can.

The frustration, I think, comes from the super high jobless rates at the moment - lets bear in mind that governments through the years have manipulated the figures about what the consider jobless - I think you will find the 'real' rate is much higher than stated. And that basic goods and services have gone through the roof. Food is at some of the highest prices ever, energy has gone off the scale. Yet we see energy companies increasing profits year in, years out. To my mind, that is lack of governmental control and the lack of a 'plan' from the government.

FS can go screw itself for all I care. Their jobs are quite meaningless in the grand scheme of things and if there ever is a revolution, they will be the first against the wall - but for the right reasons? Probably not....FS job is to be greedy.

As for government control - well, they need to grow a backbone and start dealing with this and come up with a plan. The fine line comes that FS is so powerful, that if the institutions do not like something, they will threaten to leave the UK - which ultimately f*cks all of us!

If you want to be rich, win the lottery or develop/find a talent........or insert some massive boobs, become completely self absorbed and be prepared to whore yourself out a la Katie Price

Headhuunter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Agent57 wrote:

If, say, Greece owes Germany money, and Germany owes Spain money, and Spain owes Germany money, and the UK owes France money, and Italy owes Portugal money, and Portugal owes Germany money, and Ireland owes the UK money, etc. etc., can't they all work out some deal whereby debts are cancelled out and transferred?

I mean, if Germany owes Spain €2B and Spain owes Germany €5B, can't that just be reduced to Spain owing Germany €3B? And if Germany owes Spain €2B, but Spain owes Italy €2B, can that just be reduced to Germany oweing Italy €2B?

Hypothetical numbers and national debts, of course, but in principle, why isn't that an option?

Because. The Greek government owes the Germany Banks, the German Government owes the Spanish banks, etc etc etc. The banks are not owned by the governments they are owned by shareholders who have invested, often you and me in pension fund.

One option would be to nationalise all the banks across Europe and transfer their asset to government so they can then cancel out the debts, but the net effect is likely to be the loss of investments, pensions and savings by everyone.

Not sure many gov'ts can afford to nationalise the entire banking system.

Not that they would want to anyway.

It's a sovereign debt crisis > it's not to do with who owes who. It's about gov'ts running such high debts that it's entirely possible they will be unable to repay the borrowing.

Exactly. The current crisis is largely down to governments, state bodies and municipalities in countries like Italy and Greece having borrowed and spent so ridiculously freely in the good times without saving anything that now that tax revenues are down they can barely afford to cover their enormous bond and loan repayments....

SimonAH

What it's about is people being anti (which is very easy to do) and not really being pro anything, or at least nothing properly thought out.

Very depressing really.

sketchley

Rick Chasey wrote:

Having said all that, occupy *insert well known financial area/road*, isn't really about sovereign debt, but about the FS imbalance in the economy.

Agree with that. Growth in UK economy in the last 15 years has almost entirely been growth in FS which as we now know was based on dodgy debt and eventually collapsed. Investment to ensure growth in non FS sectors such as manufacturing and innovation is the only possible way forward. It needs more of a balance. Unfortunately investment requires FS. Catch 22 there. I buy in to the idea of tax brakes to encourage growth and employment as it leads to greater net tax revenue over time, but some regulation to ensure the type of investment is in the long term interest of the country would be welcome, as would regulation to stop people profiting from negative reasons such as short selling unless the profits are then used for reinvestment. Again a bit of catch 22 that one.

I still think the most sensible thing I have heard is the separation of retail banking from investment banking as the formers assets are often gambles by the former in high risk investments added to the fact that a government is unlikely to let a retail bank collapse. Separation would allow the later to collapse at the cost to shareholders with affecting the retail bank. This make sense to me.

ooermissus

No-one really knows what to do. Unpalatable. But true.

rick_chasey

SimonAH wrote:

What it's about is people being anti (which is very easy to do) and not really being pro anything, or at least nothing properly thought out.

Very depressing really.

I get the impression they aim of the movement is to show anger at the current banking system.

That's reasonably specific. You hear quite a bit of chat about breaking up banks properly rather than ring-fencing them, and adopting economic policies which do not protect investors and bond holders (like QE does) but hard and solid job creation policies.

Now, whether that's right or not is a different issue, but it's wrong to suggest they're not 'pro anything'.

DonDaddyD

I think things have come to a point where it is blind and somewhat dismissive to label protesters as (i) Great Unwashed and (ii) not pro anything (i.e. your standard leftie anti western society/capitalist protester). They are now just people, frustrated and angry.

Economy is stalling, unemployment is high, we have a Government that has to (and is prepared to) make some tough decisions, cuts and/or add tax to near everything. These actions are arguably more traumatic now because households have spent 13 years enjoying and relying on them and the hit is a big come down.

I stil don't think the cuts have begun to bite.

I also think our current social values aren't best suited to the financial climate, whether its 'want something for nothing' or 'want but can afford' we still want and that's the problem. How many of us have replaced an item (Car, Mobile phone, TV, microwave etc) before the one we have is broken or beyond repair?

People are angry, many don't fully understand the situation or why! Most will loosely understand that it's "the banks fault" while Fianancial Services are still rich (if they were "poor" that would be a f*cking worry given it's their business to be "rich"). So people, angry people, will target them.

One thing is for certain expect more protests of varying kinds across all industries.

rick_chasey

It's not fair to call the occupiers 'wanting something for nothing'. They want a change in the financial system.

They are against the current system.

It's not like they're out there demanding to get £50s for standing there.

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's not fair to call the occupiers 'wanting something for nothing'. They want a change in the financial system.

They are against the current system.

It's not like they're out there demanding to get £50s for standing there.

I agree. Not sure yours were in relation to my post, but what I was refering to was a general social attitude of wanting as oppose to needing and that desire extends beyond people who want something for nothing and those that want something but have the means to afford.

Still in relation to Spen's question.

I don't think it can be boiled down to either of the 2 options he has posted. I just think it's a pressure cooker where people in the general population are frustrated and more willing to protest about it.

FS is being targetted because most will associate their woes as their fault.

squired

The simple fact is that we are all screwed unless something miraculous happens. My theory is that certain European power houses could be decimated in the next 5 years thanks to the way their economies have been managed. As a result of this other European countries that have been living within their means will become the economic leaders.

People can moan about financial services, but a large portion of the money that it looks after is our pensions. In that sense it is a vital service. At the same time though, we should be trying to develop other industries. I remember reading a few years ago about Intel. They commented about how they'd been looking to set-up a large base somewhere. They said that a number of Governments spoke with them, as obviously it was going to result in the creation of a number of jobs. The Government in Britain (Labour at the time) wasn't even slightly interested.

I think the people at the Stock Exchange need to get real. We need massive cuts. We also need financial services.

rick_chasey

squired wrote:

The simple fact is that we are all screwed unless something miraculous happens. My theory is that certain European power houses could be decimated in the next 5 years thanks to the way their economies have been managed. As a result of this other European countries that have been living within their means will become the economic leaders.

People can moan about financial services, but a large portion of the money that it looks after is our pensions. In that sense it is a vital service. At the same time though, we should be trying to develop other industries. I remember reading a few years ago about Intel. They commented about how they'd been looking to set-up a large base somewhere. They said that a number of Governments spoke with them, as obviously it was going to result in the creation of a number of jobs. The Government in Britain (Labour at the time) wasn't even slightly interested.

I think the people at the Stock Exchange need to get real. We need massive cuts. We also need financial services.

FS is pretty diverse. Pension managers are part of it, but I wouldn't say they're the large portion.

Again, the issue is not with the pension managers, but specifically with the IBs. I think they chose their location principally since it's close to the anger lightening rod - Goldman Sachs.

We all understand that FS are needed. I think we can also all agree, that the current system clearly has some fundamental problems - not only economically, but also socially.

The guys at the occupation clearly feel strongly about this, and have more severe solutions and ideas in mind.

It's about time there was some demonstration of public anger. Plenty of people are angry but can't afford the effort to do something with it.

There often seems to be digs from people at any protesters, purely for the fact they are protesting, which seems a little strange. < Anyone care to justify digs at demonstrators for being demonstrators (as opposed to disagreements with their particular cause?)

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's not fair to call the occupiers 'wanting something for nothing'. They want a change in the financial system.

They are against the current system.

It's not like they're out there demanding to get £50s for standing there.

Well they either don't have jobs or clearly don't need them, either because the state or a trust fund is paying for them to hang around in St Pauls whilst other people are at work.

Some of these guys will be "professional protestors" who contribute nothing but to shout about how unfair it all is, rather than getting out there and getting a job. They are blinded to the obvious irony that capitalism is, one way or another, providing them with the means to protest in the first place. Not to mention that in these tough times, there are three riot vans full of police sitting around doing nothing (presumably on decent overtime) in case they kick off. Way to add to the deficit guys!

The best thing about the BBC report this morning was the completely blank "ideas for change" board. These jokers haven't got a clue, yet are keen to preach and "be heard" rather than contribute. Hilarious.

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

FS is being targetted because most will associate their woes as their fault.

Forgetting about all the other factors, conveniently.

sketchley

squired wrote:

The simple fact is that we are all screwed unless something miraculous happens. My theory is that certain European power houses could be decimated in the next 5 years thanks to the way their economies have been managed. As a result of this other European countries that have been living within their means will become the economic leaders.

People can moan about financial services, but a large portion of the money that it looks after is our pensions. In that sense it is a vital service. At the same time though, we should be trying to develop other industries. I remember reading a few years ago about Intel. They commented about how they'd been looking to set-up a large base somewhere. They said that a number of Governments spoke with them, as obviously it was going to result in the creation of a number of jobs. The Government in Britain (Labour at the time) wasn't even slightly interested.

I think the people at the Stock Exchange need to get real. We need massive cuts. We also need financial services.

Trouble is the Government would have to offer tax incentives to do this i.e. lower corporation tax. Whilst on the surface a very good idea to offer companies tax concessions to place business in the UK you have to make sure that is not at the expense of other business or that you don't end up having to offer same tax break to all. Added to this the uproar caused recently by some companies not paying their fair share of tax (see tax player alliance etc) and you have a problem. Ireland's model for years was to offer low corporation tax to entice business to invest there and create jobs, look what happened there. Also the investment they attracted (like Dell for example) soon buggered off to Poland once lower rates where offered there at the cost of 1000s of jobs. Your not exactly attracting the right kind of investment this way.

Who know's what Intel were asking, they may of been asking the UK to match tax rates offered in Ireland and Poland and we would not entertain it.

davmaggs

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's not fair to call the occupiers 'wanting something for nothing'. They want a change in the financial system.

They are against the current system.

It's not like they're out there demanding to get £50s for standing there.

The trouble is that there isn't one system, but instead there are many components of which some are clearly troublesome whilst others are not and allow our society to function. Just stating that they want change is too nebulous.

It would also appear from the minimal coverage that there are many there that simply disagree with capitalism, and following their ideas would mean free £50 notes in that writing off debts takes from the pocket of careful people who saved and gives it to spendthrifts who splurged.

It isn't helpful and they need to pick clearly defined problems with specific parts of the finance system and propose actual fixes otherwise the Marxist elements who never liked the way the nation ran will just cause the demo to be ignored.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's not fair to call the occupiers 'wanting something for nothing'. They want a change in the financial system.

They are against the current system.

It's not like they're out there demanding to get £50s for standing there.

Change to what though? What's the alternative? What do they want in place of what there is?

rick_chasey

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's not fair to call the occupiers 'wanting something for nothing'. They want a change in the financial system.

They are against the current system.

It's not like they're out there demanding to get £50s for standing there.

Change to what though? What's the alternative? What do they want in place of what there is?

*sighs*

To make this clear, I'm not a spokesperson. I work about a 5 minute walk away, so am probably hated by the guys there at St Pauls.

Anyway.

The issues are twofold - 1, genuine bank breakup > they're naturally angry at the enormous role the IBs played in the crash and the consequent pain - especially given the lack of (relative) pain the IBs are feeling. That's a feeling that's pretty widespread across the UK.

2 - immediate gov't policies that tackle the unequalness of the downturn. Top end earners are making more than ever, yet the average punter is getting shafted. The poorer you are, the more likely you are to be hurt by the policies. They want a change of policies that don't protect investors at the expense of joe public.

(QE is a great example. keeping the bond market liquid [keeps investors happy], at the expense of inflation > which hurts everone).

rick_chasey

davmaggs wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's not fair to call the occupiers 'wanting something for nothing'. They want a change in the financial system.

They are against the current system.

It's not like they're out there demanding to get £50s for standing there.

It isn't helpful and they need to pick clearly defined problems with specific parts of the finance system and propose actual fixes otherwise the Marxist elements who never liked the way the nation ran will just cause the demo to be ignored.

Of course it's helpful. We're talking about it now.

What's wrong with publicly showing anger with a particular social and economic structure?

It's perfectly good and OK to show anger at something and want it to change, even if you can't offer a solution. That doesn't mean there isn't one. That's what you elect people for - to do that part for you.

Now some are either smart enough or think they are to offer their own solutions, some of which they will agree with, others not.

But to criticise them for being angry and showing it is bizarre. It's a cornerstone of a proper democracy.

sketchley

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's not fair to call the occupiers 'wanting something for nothing'. They want a change in the financial system.

They are against the current system.

It's not like they're out there demanding to get £50s for standing there.

Change to what though? What's the alternative? What do they want in place of what there is?

*sighs*

To make this clear, I'm not a spokesperson. I work about a 5 minute walk away, so am probably hated by the guys there at St Pauls.

Anyway.

The issues are twofold - 1, genuine bank breakup > they're naturally angry at the enormous role the IBs played in the crash and the consequent pain - especially given the lack of (relative) pain the IBs are feeling. That's a feeling that's pretty widespread across the UK.

2 - immediate gov't policies that tackle the unequalness of the downturn. Top end earners are making more than ever, yet the average punter is getting shafted. The poorer you are, the more likely you are to be hurt by the policies. They want a change of policies that don't protect investors at the expense of joe public.

(QE is a great example. keeping the bond market liquid [keeps investors happy], at the expense of inflation > which hurts everone).

Thing is there are two side to every argument.

QE for example means cash for investment in manufacturing which in turn creates jobs. Not having QE means cash drys up for small businesses which costs jobs.

gilesjuk

It's about corporate greed in general.

Is it really fair that while companies are failing and not delivering growth that their management is getting record levels of pay and bonuses?

It's wrong that a CEO can join a company, fail to lead it well, fail to deliver growth and profits then leave with a golden handshake pay off that is equivalent to 40 years pay for the average person.

rick_chasey

Sketchley wrote:

Thing is there are two side to every argument.

QE for example means cash for investment in manufacturing which in turn creates jobs. Not having QE means cash drys up for small businesses which costs jobs.

Absolutely. But it's worth having the discussion, rather than blindly going 'there's no alternative'.

There obviously is.

sketchley

Rick Chasey wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's not fair to call the occupiers 'wanting something for nothing'. They want a change in the financial system.

They are against the current system.

It's not like they're out there demanding to get £50s for standing there.

It isn't helpful and they need to pick clearly defined problems with specific parts of the finance system and propose actual fixes otherwise the Marxist elements who never liked the way the nation ran will just cause the demo to be ignored.

Of course it's helpful. We're talking about it now.

What's wrong with publicly showing anger with a particular social and economic structure?

It's perfectly good and OK to show anger at something and want it to change, even if you can't offer a solution. That doesn't mean there isn't one. That's what you elect people for - to do that part for you.

Now some are either smart enough or think they are to offer their own solutions, some of which they will agree with, others not.

But to criticise them for being angry and showing it is bizarre. It's a cornerstone of a proper democracy.

What's wrong is that through understanding the options available to sort out the problem you might conclude that sticking with and propping up the existing system however unfair or disliked is the best option. That's why people often say don't protest against come up with the solution. I'm sure the government would love to be given a solution that solves this all, keeps inflation low, removes debt, increase employment and keeps everyone happy. That would at least ensure them a landslide at the next election. So if these people are really serious come up with the solution. I would vote for them if they could.

rick_chasey

Sketchley wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's not fair to call the occupiers 'wanting something for nothing'. They want a change in the financial system.

They are against the current system.

It's not like they're out there demanding to get £50s for standing there.

It isn't helpful and they need to pick clearly defined problems with specific parts of the finance system and propose actual fixes otherwise the Marxist elements who never liked the way the nation ran will just cause the demo to be ignored.

Of course it's helpful. We're talking about it now.

What's wrong with publicly showing anger with a particular social and economic structure?

It's perfectly good and OK to show anger at something and want it to change, even if you can't offer a solution. That doesn't mean there isn't one. That's what you elect people for - to do that part for you.

Now some are either smart enough or think they are to offer their own solutions, some of which they will agree with, others not.

But to criticise them for being angry and showing it is bizarre. It's a cornerstone of a proper democracy.

What's wrong is that through understanding the options available to sort out the problem you might conclude that sticking with and propping up the existing system however unfair or disliked is the best option.

That's not the 'only' conclusion you can come to.

Very smart guys, former BofE commitee members, successful financiers, etc have suggested that what is happening is not the best of a bad situation.

Just take a look at your average weekly newsnight discussion about the state of the Eurozone and the financial system.

Surely we can agree the current situation is fundamentally unsound and problematic - and there needs to be a solution.

Banks clearly provide a vital role to the economy, but can't be trusted to always provide that role > since they are willing to put that role at risk to make more money.