Financial matters

[Fester]

Oh how soon we forget. 

Back in 2008 we were all terrified that the economy was coming apart at the seams, our houses would fall 70% in value and there would be NO CASH in the cash machines.  That was perilously close.

So, we cried out for strong leadership to stop the panic , and the govt installed top bankers into part-taxpayer-owned banks.
Then... to a degree, the ship steadied.
Now, its time for those guys to reap the bonus promised to them...BUT NO!

Aren't we all heartily sick of hearing politicians saying exactly what they think we want to hear?
They are like Estate Agents the lot of them.

[Fester]

Rather than focusing on the men who are re-building the banks, yesterday we saw Fred Goodwin get stripped of his knighthood for causing the ruin of RBS.

Here is a cartoon on the subject that tickled me...

[Ian]

So, we cried out for strong leadership to stop the panic , and the govt installed top bankers into part-taxpayer-owned banks. Then... to a degree, the ship steadied. Now, its time for those guys to reap the bonus promised to them...BUT NO!

There's an inherent fallacy, however, if we assume that it was solely the work of those 'top bankers' that saw the ship steadied. The start of all the problems - at least in the UK - was the imminent perceived collapse of Northern Rock in 2007, itself occasioned by the crisis in the US sub-prime mortgage market. That was followed in short order by a colossal drop in confidence in the shares of banks in general, and even Barclays saw a run, albeit short.

All of that led, eventually, to the various nationalisations, which - it can be argued - stabilised the market and the banking industry in the UK, all without the need for those 'top bankers', who simply ensured that the banks they were left to steer didn't run into too many reefs.

One thing that is consistent about the fiscal situation is that everyone blames everyone else for the problems, and the world is, as always, replete with armchair experts who all know, with chilling certainty, what went wrong, what needs to be done and whose only common characteristic is that they all disagree with each other.  However, some theories suggest that modern markets pass through phases in what can be seen as an organic process, while others point to a significant combination of  complex factors. Whatever the eventual verdict of historians, it seems likely that paying huge bonuses to bankers at a time when the pay rises of all public service employees is restricted to 0%, business are closing in their droves and unemployment rising faster than at any time in the past 60 years will be seen as unwise.

[Yorkie]

and the world is, as always, replete with armchair experts who all know, with chilling certainty, what went wrong, what needs to be done and whose only common characteristic is that they all disagree with each other

Exactly!   

[Merddin Emrys]

It's all just like a big game of monopoly! I'll be the racing car  ^*^0

[Fester]

I don't profess to know all the intricate reasons for the parlous state of the world's economy.
(apart from these days many people want to TAKE without CONTRIBUTING to the economy in the first place)

But I do know what can sort it out.  Strong leadership and tough decisions, and thats what they paid Steven Hester to do.
History is littered with examples of it.

This question was never about what caused the mess, it was a simple point about a guy being promised a sum of money to do a job... and then hounded out of it by the political media.  Thats just wrong.

[Pendragon]

Have all the other big wigs given back their bonuses then?

[Ian]

But I do know what can sort it out.  Strong leadership and tough decisions

Some might argue that's what got us into the mess in the first place.

[DaveR]

All of that led, eventually, to the various nationalisations, which - it can be argued - stabilised the market and the banking industry in the UK, all without the need for those 'top bankers', who simply ensured that the banks they were left to steer didn't run into too many reefs.

It also caused tremendous problems for all those people who had invested in the supposedly 'safe as houses' Lloyds TSB and watched, in some cases, their life savings dwindle to almost nothing as the Lloyds share price and dividends collapsed after they were 'persuaded' by the Govt to rescue HBOS.

[Fester]

But I do know what can sort it out.  Strong leadership and tough decisions

Some might argue that's what got us into the mess in the first place.

My opinion is that weak leadership, and lax decision making got us into the mess.
Purely from a financial point of view, it was a weak governement that allowed a massive influx of migrants without checking that they could contribute to the economy.
A weak government who slavishly followed EU guidance that stated that we must support the children of those migrants on benefits, and send public money overseas to them. (with minimal checking)
Weak leadership led to the relaxation of borders, and the increase in crme. Few could argue with that.

Australia are more rigorous in such policies and they (coincidentally?) are not bearing the brunt of the fiscal crisis.

[Ian]

Purely from a financial point of view, it was a weak governement that allowed a massive influx of migrants without checking that they could contribute to the economy.

Immigration has increased steadily, since the 1950s, and successive governments since the 70s have promised to tackle the problem, with little success.  There are several reasons why.

We're part of the EU and thus cannot stop anyone from a member state from coming here and working, if they so wish.  The other issue is the Commonwealth countries, and that's a far more complex matter.  Almost every member of the former colonies was granted British Nationality in the 1948 act, which allowed them to enter the UK. In 1962, the Immigrants Act reversed the automatic right to settle here. But your facts about immigration are wrong, Fester. Research published by University College London in July 2009 showed that EU migrants made a "substantial net contribution to the UK fiscal system", paying 37 per cent more in taxes than they received in welfare payments. However, "EEA national(s) who are economically inactive, including A8 and A2 nationals will not generally be entitled to income-related benefits".Researchers found that, on average, A8 migrants were younger and better educated than the native population, and that if they had the same demographic characteristics of natives, would be 13 per cent less likely to claim benefits and 28 per cent less likely to live in social housing.

Asylum seekers and refugees are the third group, and here again it's interesting to see the trends. The numbers applying as refugees and asylum seekers have fallen dramatically since 2002.

Weak leadership led to the relaxation of borders, and the increase in crme.

Your point about crime, however, is interesting: according to the British Crime survey and Police figures overall crime in the UK fell steadily between 1994 and 2010, and has started rising again only in the past 12 months, showing a 2% rise which, incidentally, excludes the riots. Knife crime is seeing the greatest rise but, overall, between 1998 and 2010 crime fell by 16%.

[Ian]

I should add that immigration, however, is disproportionate in certain areas.  Residents of certain Midland towns, for example, may well feel that immigration is completely out of control. 

[Fester]

I do not believe for one moment that my figures on immigration (impacting negatively) on the economy are incorrect.

Real life experience tell you that it is a serious issue, which stems from badly set up sytems and weak leadership from the beginning.
It is in the Govt's interest to issue a report saying that migrants contribute more to the economy than they take... but its purely political.  I am sure that (loathsome as they are) the BNP could commission a report that says the opposite.
Successive governments want to portray this Utopia idea that we live in a peaceful, thriving, multi-cultural society.
Nothing could be further from the truth.

The problem is widespread, and multi-dimensional, and I wonder if the impact of loss of income (plus benefit spend) for the indiginous population has been factored in to the Cambridge survey?  I seriously doubt that.
Or the future impacts on the Benefits Agency, or the NHS stemming from an increase in population far outstripping the birth rate of the indigenous population?     Nope, way too complex and politically incorrect to ever attempt.

[Ian]

I do not believe for one moment that my figures on immigration (impacting negatively) on the economy are incorrect.

The research projects are not always Government commissioned;  in fact most aren't.  But that's why we need objective research, because we all have personal experiences which lead us to believe the opposite is true, while the rags, such as the DFM, delight in spreading fear, xenophobia and hatred simply to make money.

[Ian]

"Estimates showing £10.9bn in unpaid tax was written off and medical negligence could cost £15.7bn are "gobsmacking", says the Commons spending watchdog.

The public accounts committee has published its verdict on the new Whole of Government Accounts (WGA).

The report also predicts the long-term costs of decommissioning nuclear power stations could hit £56.7bn while public sector pensions could cost £1,132bn.

Ministers said it was the world's most ambitious set of public accounts.

The figures are a set of financial records for the entire UK public sector, from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010 - under the previous Labour government - based on commercial accounting principles.

They are intended to show what the government owns, owes, spends and receives.

The public accounts committee criticised the Treasury for providing figures that were "too dated", because of the 20 months it took to get them published, and complained that some major costs were omitted such as the publicly-owned banks and Network Rail.

But its chairman, Labour's Margaret Hodge, told the BBC: "This is the first time they have been published and I think we should welcome that."

The WGA included estimates for costs decades into the future, "and that's why we've got some really gob smacking figures", she told the BBC. "
Full story here.