Traders letter to Wall Street Protestors
11 November 2011, 03:46 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The same middle and working class people who for previous decades did one of two things, or even worse, both: -
- crowed incessantly about the growth of their investments and property prices (were they protesting against the banking industry then?)
- lapped up the credit like a Labrador with a tapeworm (even bragging what schemes could give them the best credit deals)
I am sure it was all the fault of the banking industry
- crowed incessantly about the growth of their investments and property prices (were they protesting against the banking industry then?)
- lapped up the credit like a Labrador with a tapeworm (even bragging what schemes could give them the best credit deals)
I am sure it was all the fault of the banking industry
What planet are you living on? Planet Bank maybe? Planet Porker? Try living on planet Earth. I am lower class, and most of us lived in council houses, and wouldn't have known an investment if it bit us in the ****. The main topic of conversation regarding prices was the price of a pint of beer, not the value of our investments.
Of course if was the fault of the banking industry. ITS YOUR INDUSTRY! YOU'RE THE EXPERTS. THE FINANCIAL WIZZ KIDS. THE GURU'S OF FINANCE. Or so you tell us.
When the BP oil rig dumped oil all over the Gulf, who got the blame? Food manufacturing or the oil industry?
I work in aviation and I draw this analogy. If airlines decided to use only half the engines to power aircraft, profits would soar as the cost index would be halved. Or thereabouts, I wont get too techy. It doesn't happen however as the risk is too great.
But with banking the greater the risk the greater the rewards + BONUSES! Mustn't forget the almighty bonus now.
And all that with no risk. Because when it all goes **** up, you come running to the public for a bailout.
Trout I have no doubt you're a decent chap in real life, worked hard for all you have. But your industry is suffering from some bad PR at the moment.
I'd say it was full of bull**** artists out to make a fast buck and damn the consequences for the rest of us.
Just saying.
11 November 2011, 04:56 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First point - just for clarity - I am not not a banker. Not now, not ever. Knowing banking doesn't make me a banker.
And secondly, I am sure there are plenty of people where the price of beer was a key driver.
But there were plenty of others monetising their council properties, or getting loans or buying ISAs, or borrowing money for holidays, cars, massive plasma tvs.
Let the man who doesn't have a credit card, or debt, or a mortgage cast the first stone. We are all part of the same ecosystem.
And secondly, I am sure there are plenty of people where the price of beer was a key driver.
But there were plenty of others monetising their council properties, or getting loans or buying ISAs, or borrowing money for holidays, cars, massive plasma tvs.
Let the man who doesn't have a credit card, or debt, or a mortgage cast the first stone. We are all part of the same ecosystem.
Last edited by Trout; 11 November 2011 at 05:00 PM.
12 November 2011, 03:26 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First point - just for clarity - I am not not a banker. Not now, not ever. Knowing banking doesn't make me a banker.
And secondly, I am sure there are plenty of people where the price of beer was a key driver.
But there were plenty of others monetising their council properties, or getting loans or buying ISAs, or borrowing money for holidays, cars, massive plasma tvs.
Let the man who doesn't have a credit card, or debt, or a mortgage cast the first stone. We are all part of the same ecosystem.
And secondly, I am sure there are plenty of people where the price of beer was a key driver.
But there were plenty of others monetising their council properties, or getting loans or buying ISAs, or borrowing money for holidays, cars, massive plasma tvs.
Let the man who doesn't have a credit card, or debt, or a mortgage cast the first stone. We are all part of the same ecosystem.
Bad analogy, but would a good Doctor just let the patient write their own prescriptions, give them whatever drugs or treatment they wanted?
12 November 2011, 05:12 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
City types perform well they earn good money, city types **** up they change the rules use taxpayers cash and change governements just to make sure they still get paid good money. Too many traders get paid on the basis of making any kind of trade good or bad does not matter. If the public allow it then more fool us, its time for people to stand up to the corupt banking industry that has been in stealing form the masses since the introduction of fractional reserve banking. We now have banking officials choosing governments, and governemt poilicy around Europe.
http://euobserver.com/7/32501
http://euobserver.com/7/32501
12 November 2011, 06:00 PM
#41
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swilling coffee at my lab bench
Posts: 9,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all very well blaming 'the system', but each and every individual trader - as well as each and every financial institution - exists for one reason and one reason alone, and that's to try and make money for him/her/itself. Blaming "bankers" for the current situation is as misguided as it is pointless; there was never any great unity, or consensus, or intentional plan to screw things up - just another case where what is good for each individual is bad for the group as a whole. Evolution and game theory are full of such examples.
Bear in mind also that the money they're trading is peoples' savings, investments and pensions, so growing the value of those things to the best of their ability is exactly what they should be doing. I want the fund managers in charge of my pension to make it increase in value as far as possible so I can be comfortable in my old age. It's what I pay them for.
Yes, they take a cut for themselves, but that's only a small proportion; most of what they make belongs to ordinary savers looking to provide for themselves on a rainy day or in retirement. I have a hard time seeing that as "wrong" in any moral sense.
Anyway, was the current crisis not simply caused by governments spending more than they earned? That's just bad arithmetic, hardly the banks' fault either.
12 November 2011, 06:53 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You don't get it Trout, it is the job of financial elites and institutions to LEAD, not just throw the mob as much credit as they want. What purpose does an elite serve but to lead? Why are they rewarded so otherwise? An elite which does not lead well is useless and corrupt and should go down.
Bad analogy, but would a good Doctor just let the patient write their own prescriptions, give them whatever drugs or treatment they wanted?
Bad analogy, but would a good Doctor just let the patient write their own prescriptions, give them whatever drugs or treatment they wanted?
...it is an awful analogy!
12 November 2011, 06:59 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
City types perform well they earn good money, city types **** up they change the rules use taxpayers cash and change governements just to make sure they still get paid good money. Too many traders get paid on the basis of making any kind of trade good or bad does not matter. If the public allow it then more fool us, its time for people to stand up to the corupt banking industry that has been in stealing form the masses since the introduction of fractional reserve banking. We now have banking officials choosing governments, and governemt poilicy around Europe.
http://euobserver.com/7/32501
http://euobserver.com/7/32501
12 November 2011, 07:37 PM
#44
Let's face it; executive compensation is beyond obscene. I don't care how much education you have. Nobody is worth this kind of money, and this isn't even an extreme example; many executives "earn" hundreds of millions of dollars/pounds per year, and that's just salary and bonus; it doesn't even count the perks: private jets, limousines, extravagant dining, etc. all charged to the company. These people are, after all, employees, not the owners. If anyone deserves to be compensated, I would think the owners/shareholders--should realize these benefits, in the form of dividends, for instance. And what happens when these geniuses ideas fail? The shareholders pay for those failures, and the execs still get their fat salaries and perks. The troubling thing is that I can't imagine a way short of Socialist-type regulations to stop the practice. That is, the cure is worse than the disease.
Last edited by Maz; 12 November 2011 at 07:38 PM.
12 November 2011, 08:25 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you point to executives in banking who earn 'hundreds of millions per year'?
You should check out the earnings of Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Media, Big Industry.
And if you want to dig deep on corporate corruption at the highest look at some of the multi-nationals that rebuild war zones etc - then you can really see big money hand in glove with Government manipulation.
Banks are an easy target - but the disease is widespread!!
You should check out the earnings of Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Media, Big Industry.
And if you want to dig deep on corporate corruption at the highest look at some of the multi-nationals that rebuild war zones etc - then you can really see big money hand in glove with Government manipulation.
Banks are an easy target - but the disease is widespread!!
12 November 2011, 08:41 PM
#46
Scooby Regular
What these guys earn has **** all to do with anyone other than the shareholders. So it's bloody unfortunate we bailed them out, as you get the situation we currently have where everyone wants to poke their nose in.
12 November 2011, 08:46 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
12 November 2011, 10:28 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Corsham
Posts: 1,356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It isn't as simple as socialism, we all know socialism failed, unfortunately, capitalism is now failing.
Once employers, manufacturing industry had a social responsibility, industrial action changed that to a great degree, with self concern being countered with industry no longer worrying about the community it created and employed. This has grown and grown and social responsibility has fallen by the wayside along with the decline in manufacturing industry in this country (and America).
A company now has only one aim, to improve it's share price, as that is how it's investors get money and its senior executives. As a result the workforce becomes secondary to it's shareholders, when all along, in a service industry, it is the workers that make things happen. Those workers, who for example have their bank accounts and money with their employer (or maybe shareholdings themselves in sharesave schemes to encourage employee involvement in their company) are pushed aside in sweeping redundancies and their jobs given to overseas workers in developing countries. This results in money leaving the country and the UK economy. This in turn leaves the ex-employees struggling to find a living and mortgages which were previously within easy grasp, become like a boat anchor around their necks. Savings become eroded and the last few possesions they have are sold in Bankruptcy, leaving the people in a greater and greater poverty trap.
The greed of the 1% ( and I don't mean traders) those that own and control te industry has become so great, that in their great competition of "who has the most money when they die, wins" they have forgotten all the people that slaved for them, the natural resources they were given for next to nothing (or took) and pushed them aside.
Make no mistake here, you cannot continue to take money from the bottom of the food chain and give it to the top. It is unsustainable. Once your goods become out of reach of the masses, the profits will stop, the companies will collapse and take the economies with them.
Economy is debt based, money is worthless, it is merely a promise to pay, once there are no longer the assets to back up that promise, it may as well be an out of date bus ticket. Many countries have been printing more money than they can afford to back up and sooner or later there will be more and more near collapses, and more and more countries like Greece. Eventually the whole deck of cards will fall, and they will have to find a new solution, Socialism won't work, capitalism will fail, a new way forward will need to be found.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
This makes a lot of sense as to how and why this has come about, but I am unsure as to whether it is a real solution. It certainly wont happen in my lifetime, I just hope it happens for the sake of my kids and future grandkids. I don't want them to go through the misery of debt and sacrifice just to be able to run a car or buy a home to live in.
And Trout is right, Banks are an easy target - but the disease is widespread!!
Once employers, manufacturing industry had a social responsibility, industrial action changed that to a great degree, with self concern being countered with industry no longer worrying about the community it created and employed. This has grown and grown and social responsibility has fallen by the wayside along with the decline in manufacturing industry in this country (and America).
A company now has only one aim, to improve it's share price, as that is how it's investors get money and its senior executives. As a result the workforce becomes secondary to it's shareholders, when all along, in a service industry, it is the workers that make things happen. Those workers, who for example have their bank accounts and money with their employer (or maybe shareholdings themselves in sharesave schemes to encourage employee involvement in their company) are pushed aside in sweeping redundancies and their jobs given to overseas workers in developing countries. This results in money leaving the country and the UK economy. This in turn leaves the ex-employees struggling to find a living and mortgages which were previously within easy grasp, become like a boat anchor around their necks. Savings become eroded and the last few possesions they have are sold in Bankruptcy, leaving the people in a greater and greater poverty trap.
The greed of the 1% ( and I don't mean traders) those that own and control te industry has become so great, that in their great competition of "who has the most money when they die, wins" they have forgotten all the people that slaved for them, the natural resources they were given for next to nothing (or took) and pushed them aside.
Make no mistake here, you cannot continue to take money from the bottom of the food chain and give it to the top. It is unsustainable. Once your goods become out of reach of the masses, the profits will stop, the companies will collapse and take the economies with them.
Economy is debt based, money is worthless, it is merely a promise to pay, once there are no longer the assets to back up that promise, it may as well be an out of date bus ticket. Many countries have been printing more money than they can afford to back up and sooner or later there will be more and more near collapses, and more and more countries like Greece. Eventually the whole deck of cards will fall, and they will have to find a new solution, Socialism won't work, capitalism will fail, a new way forward will need to be found.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
This makes a lot of sense as to how and why this has come about, but I am unsure as to whether it is a real solution. It certainly wont happen in my lifetime, I just hope it happens for the sake of my kids and future grandkids. I don't want them to go through the misery of debt and sacrifice just to be able to run a car or buy a home to live in.
And Trout is right, Banks are an easy target - but the disease is widespread!!
12 November 2011, 11:43 PM
#51
Would you blame the executives at BAT or the store/shop owner selling cigarettes if a regular smoker developed a smoking related disease for a 40 a day habit?
13 November 2011, 12:02 AM
#52
It isn't as simple as socialism, we all know socialism failed, unfortunately, capitalism is now failing.
Once employers, manufacturing industry had a social responsibility, industrial action changed that to a great degree, with self concern being countered with industry no longer worrying about the community it created and employed. This has grown and grown and social responsibility has fallen by the wayside along with the decline in manufacturing industry in this country (and America).
A company now has only one aim, to improve it's share price, as that is how it's investors get money and its senior executives.
Once employers, manufacturing industry had a social responsibility, industrial action changed that to a great degree, with self concern being countered with industry no longer worrying about the community it created and employed. This has grown and grown and social responsibility has fallen by the wayside along with the decline in manufacturing industry in this country (and America).
A company now has only one aim, to improve it's share price, as that is how it's investors get money and its senior executives.
As implied above, this is only true if you believe that it's an essential part of capitalism for companies or countries to borrow large sums of money they should know full well they can't afford, and for banks to lend them that money knowing that they can't afford it. Last time I checked, this didn't appear in any of the textbooks on the subject that I could find. The problem here isn't capitalism, it's that too many people who should know better haven't been following its most basic rules.
13 November 2011, 06:17 AM
#53
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
13 November 2011, 06:21 AM
#54
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd define what happened as more a form of corporatism; the state and business working together in a synergy...a pact, the state effectively existing to serve powerful business interests.
13 November 2011, 06:26 AM
#55
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, at risk of stating the obvious: to make money.
It's all very well blaming 'the system', but each and every individual trader - as well as each and every financial institution - exists for one reason and one reason alone, and that's to try and make money for him/her/itself. Blaming "bankers" for the current situation is as misguided as it is pointless; there was never any great unity, or consensus, or intentional plan to screw things up - just another case where what is good for each individual is bad for the group as a whole. Evolution and game theory are full of such examples.
Bear in mind also that the money they're trading is peoples' savings, investments and pensions, so growing the value of those things to the best of their ability is exactly what they should be doing. I want the fund managers in charge of my pension to make it increase in value as far as possible so I can be comfortable in my old age. It's what I pay them for.
Yes, they take a cut for themselves, but that's only a small proportion; most of what they make belongs to ordinary savers looking to provide for themselves on a rainy day or in retirement. I have a hard time seeing that as "wrong" in any moral sense.
Anyway, was the current crisis not simply caused by governments spending more than they earned? That's just bad arithmetic, hardly the banks' fault either.
It's all very well blaming 'the system', but each and every individual trader - as well as each and every financial institution - exists for one reason and one reason alone, and that's to try and make money for him/her/itself. Blaming "bankers" for the current situation is as misguided as it is pointless; there was never any great unity, or consensus, or intentional plan to screw things up - just another case where what is good for each individual is bad for the group as a whole. Evolution and game theory are full of such examples.
Bear in mind also that the money they're trading is peoples' savings, investments and pensions, so growing the value of those things to the best of their ability is exactly what they should be doing. I want the fund managers in charge of my pension to make it increase in value as far as possible so I can be comfortable in my old age. It's what I pay them for.
Yes, they take a cut for themselves, but that's only a small proportion; most of what they make belongs to ordinary savers looking to provide for themselves on a rainy day or in retirement. I have a hard time seeing that as "wrong" in any moral sense.
Anyway, was the current crisis not simply caused by governments spending more than they earned? That's just bad arithmetic, hardly the banks' fault either.
If you think elites exist just to 'make money' then you are not thinking hard enough, they play a socio-economic role. They are both Aryn Rands 'creators' and Marx's exploiters, unless they are wholly corrupt then they are just kleptocrats.
13 November 2011, 06:30 AM
#56
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's face it; executive compensation is beyond obscene. I don't care how much education you have. Nobody is worth this kind of money, and this isn't even an extreme example; many executives "earn" hundreds of millions of dollars/pounds per year, and that's just salary and bonus; it doesn't even count the perks: private jets, limousines, extravagant dining, etc. all charged to the company. These people are, after all, employees, not the owners. If anyone deserves to be compensated, I would think the owners/shareholders--should realize these benefits, in the form of dividends, for instance. And what happens when these geniuses ideas fail? The shareholders pay for those failures, and the execs still get their fat salaries and perks. The troubling thing is that I can't imagine a way short of Socialist-type regulations to stop the practice. That is, the cure is worse than the disease.
It's a terrible advertisement of liberal values and Capitalism because it has led to individuals who cannot moderate themselves for whatever reason.
13 November 2011, 08:41 AM
#60
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Banking is MASSIVELY regulated and credit was ENCOURAGED by most Western Governments - and this has been the case since the late '70s.
So tell me - who is responsible for the credit crunch?
What most people who post on this subject seem to forget, ignore or are merely ignorant of is that banks are neither social nor capitalist - they serve a structural function in the delivery of the Government's economic policy.
This duality maybe an impossible balance to achieve - but you cannot challenge the banks without challenging Government, Treasury, Revenue and their regulators.
So tell me - who is responsible for the credit crunch?
What most people who post on this subject seem to forget, ignore or are merely ignorant of is that banks are neither social nor capitalist - they serve a structural function in the delivery of the Government's economic policy.
This duality maybe an impossible balance to achieve - but you cannot challenge the banks without challenging Government, Treasury, Revenue and their regulators.