Hilarity Ensues

[AndyR]

^ what about the dudes who get in at the top because daddy owns the company?

Nearly missed that bit dave :D

Access to capital, sadly is one of the measurements of the "legs" that we are born with.

It was in my first post, or at least I meant it with:
"some because they were born with the funds (= their ancestors did some hard work),"

Might not have been daddy, might have been grand-daddy, whoever. Might even be based on what we now regard as the ill-gotten gains of slavery, piracy, or something else we wouldn't tolerate now.

But most of us expect our stuff to go to our descendants - how can we have one rule for us and not allow the rich to do the same? I don't see why I should get a share in the fruits of someone else's labours just so that their offsrping don't get it. I know it's what causes the great rich-poor divide, but the other answer means that our kids won't get the fruits of our labours either...

The business of "Johnny" getting a seat on the board because he's family - who cares? Any banker/industrialist that puts his idiot son on the throne without "training" him up first (or providing trustworthy support) has probably made a lot worse business decisions than that already :lol:

[Kilby]

For many of us it isn't the politics of envy (for want of a better phrase)

Many people from all levels in society have over stretched themselves financially (either with mortgages or credit) and we or the most part have to live in the mess that we have made for ourselves.

In the case of what the fatcats (as others have phrased it) are supposed to know what they are doing (and paid accordingly)

However they bought black box mortgage deals, where they bought mortgages off each other but where not allowed to look at the details of what they have purchased (hence the term black box). Christ even I wouldn't be stupid enough to do that.

How about derivitives ? Even the brains in a jar that came up with them admit that they don't understand the implications, yet the banks where blindly dealing in them without having the slightest clue as to what their liabilitys where.

The problem is these guys when they screw up still manage to keep their jobs and pay themselves bonuses. Even when they lose their jobs theyre employed soon afterwards (after huge severence payments) despite that all to often they are actually almost totally ignorant of the sector theyre working in.

If I feck up I expect to pay the price, however certain sections of people are simply promoted out of harms way (or at worst sideways), they never pay the price. On the rare ocasions that they lose their jobs theres always another directorship around the corner (same for our lords and masters in Westminister)

It's like the view (especially in the UK & US) that a manager is a manager and can therefore successfully manage any business despite total ignorance regarding the company (or departments) market or role.

Having worked in dealing rooms, merchant & investment banks for years (Soc Gen, Baring Bros, Swiss Bank, Swiss Re, Lehman Citi Bank et al) I can safely say that my cat probably has a higher IQ.

The Soc Gen dealing floor for example was staffed by the idiot sons of the Parisian bankers and politicians who where trying to avoid military service,

The techies @ Baring Bros paid 300 quid for a null modem lead and a copy of Kermit for transferring files between 2 PCs (their boss thought it was incredible) and I'm not surprised that they went bust.

I think it's just a desire to see justice that is causing many of us to comment, if you work hard and make good (or at least reasionable) decisions nobody (with any sense) would argue about them being paid well.

But if you are doing something wrong (wrong or stupis is still wrong or stupid no matter how hard you work at it.) That should not bring you any sort of reward.

But as usual it dosn't work like that

[38thBeatle]

Again Dave I understand but I am not talking of those who buy more than one house_ I just mean the ordinary bloke who buys a house to live in and doesn't even think of it as a means of making money.My preoccupation for years now has been to keep a roof over the head of my family and if I get to leave it to my kids when I snuff it then that is also good ( as I have been paying tax on my earnings I definately do not see why the state should take the results of a lifetime of work and sacrifice- I may just as well as not bothered if that was the system). So my house had increased in value but that is no use to me unless I sell and use the money for funding whatever dream I have. The Missus and I did want to move but that was to a similar sized house in a lovely little village nearby and so there is little to be gained for me-just means I am keeping up.Even now that is not out of the question becuase I am lucky enough to be a homeowner of many years( who incidentally had to cope with a mortgage rate at 15% at one point) and so I will not be as badly hit as those who have bought in the last 2 or 3 years at the inflated prices-not all of them are speculators indeed I would suggest that most of them were simply looking to own the house they live in-nothing wrong with that in my book. The housing market was, as others have said, unsustainable but in time a new balance will be struck and life will go on- some will have learned, some will not. Some will win and some will lose. Now iis probably a good time to buy and I reckon there are speculators out there with the readies rubbing their hands together at the thought of forthcoming repossessions. But if it also means that others get the chance to buy then that is a good thing. I am not going to get all political about it( that should be kept off the forum in my view) but I understand too that these times bring about strong opinions.

[Kilby]

Mr 38 that's much of how I feel about matters it's the ordinary working person pays for the mistakes

I'm was to say there's 3 guys in my office rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of picking up some cheap property (and considering I was so close to that situation about 4 years ago it quite upsets me)
 

[dave_mc]

first of all, +1 on kilby's post about 3 posts up. :)

to 38th: i know what you're saying. certainly, i feel sorry for those who just happened to need a house at the height of the boom. however, even people with only one house were often rubbing their hands with glee (not talking about you, obviously) at the "gains" they were making (not quite sure why, when you only have one house, all the other houses are going up in value too, so unless you're going to live in a tent, any gains are strictly on paper only).

I know that at one point it seemed that everyone in our estate (except for us) was rubbing their hands with glee and was planning to move once they saw how much money their house would sell for. these people only had one house.


not to mention, a heck of a lot of people with only one house were buying one house they could ill-afford, and hoping that with the increase in the property market, they could trade up. again, making money from the boom.

as i said, i accept that some people who don't deserve to lose anything will lose. I feel genuinely sorry for those people. just i disagree that there are so few people to blame for the mess. granted some people are more to blame than others, but the house prices weren't rocketing solely because of speculators etc. the fact that once easy credit dried up, the bottom fell out of the market, more or less proves that- a lot of those speculators probably had enough money not to need those loans, or at least would be a safe enough bet to still be able to get credit.

:)

^ what about the dudes who get in at the top because daddy owns the company?

Nearly missed that bit dave :D

Access to capital, sadly is one of the measurements of the "legs" that we are born with.

It was in my first post, or at least I meant it with:
"some because they were born with the funds (= their ancestors did some hard work),"

Might not have been daddy, might have been grand-daddy, whoever. Might even be based on what we now regard as the ill-gotten gains of slavery, piracy, or something else we wouldn't tolerate now.

But most of us expect our stuff to go to our descendants - how can we have one rule for us and not allow the rich to do the same? I don't see why I should get a share in the fruits of someone else's labours just so that their offsrping don't get it. I know it's what causes the great rich-poor divide, but the other answer means that our kids won't get the fruits of our labours either...

The business of "Johnny" getting a seat on the board because he's family - who cares? Any banker/industrialist that puts his idiot son on the throne without "training" him up first (or providing trustworthy support) has probably made a lot worse business decisions than that already :lol:

ah, ok, i didn't realise you meant that. i guess that's fair enough. though i'd say that some jobs pay better than others, whether or not merit is involved... i mean, just as an example, university lecturers are among the best-qualified people in the country, and they get paid a pittance. not to mention, in some jobs you're almost considered evil if you like money (those jobs considered a "calling", or a vocation e.g. teaching, nursing), while in others it's positively encouraged.

Not a major fan of double standards. :(

[MrBump]

i mean, just as an example, university lecturers are among the best-qualified people in the country, and they get paid a pittance.

That's not necessarily the case - universities (in my experience) are market economies too.  For example, when I was at uni in the early '90s, I knew that one of the lecturers, who pulled in a lot of research contracts, was grossing over 100k.

The reverse of that though, when I graduated I ended up working in a tertiary college teaching psychology to A level students for about £3 per hour, on a 16 hour week!

Mark.

[Johnny Mac]

Well what ever happens the city are predicting income tax hikes of up to 8p in the pound as Alistair Darling says he won't cut on public spending. There were also figures of £1200 a year increases for households. Not very hilarious in my book but having worked with many strange people with twisted ideas on socialism then I don't find these misguided comments that suprising anymore. Those increases equate to Gibson money or most of the other brands. Or even a fantastic holiday like I've just had. My immediate reaction to tax increases of that level is to break the law and work for cash which thousands of others will do given the option. Which will contribute to the ever decreasing cirlcle. The bottom line which has already been pointed out is that, if the top boys mess up we all suffer. The key to surviving these boom bust consequenses is not to stretch yourself to the point, as Dave said that so you won't be in the situation of failing to make your morgtage if the interest rate goes up 1/4 %. Although easier said than done.

[dave_mc]

^ wow, that'd be quite a hike, if true. maybe darling/brown could just get rid of the 20% band to make the tax system "less complicated"...   :? :P :x

That's not necessarily the case - universities (in my experience) are market economies too.  For example, when I was at uni in the early '90s, I knew that one of the lecturers, who pulled in a lot of research contracts, was grossing over 100k.

The reverse of that though, when I graduated I ended up working in a tertiary college teaching psychology to A level students for about £3 per hour, on a 16 hour week!

Mark.

yeah, i'm sure some earn more than that (and professors etc.), the point is a lot are on barely much more than 20-30k, and that's after about 8 years' intensive university training (including phds, post-doc placements, etc.). not to mention, a lot of the money for those research things are based on what's currently needed by companies, rather than what might be more academically useful- a heck of a lot of our most useful scientific discoveries came about because of accidents etc. it's a dangerous game if you try to predict what scientific advances are needed, as it's virtually impossible to do so.

EDIT: not to mention, there's a hell of a lot more competition than for most other jobs where you need a degree. for most professional jobs, all you need is a 2:1 in a good degree, and you should get a job (assuming decent market conditions lol), while to get a lectureship in a top university, you need a first, a phd, and at least one post-doc placement (if not two), not to mention a "proven track record" in research (i.e. a ton of published papers). all to get a job which quite probably pays less than those other jobs i'm mentioning. at least teachers get decent holidays as a bit of a perk (as they aren't paid enough either, imo).

i guess, i don't agree that money necessarily equals merit, regardless of what the capitalists say. It can do, don't get me wrong, but also luck etc. can play a big part (bigger than most capitalists are willing to admit). i should add that i'm no socialist either, but the argument that "socialism doesn't work because of human nature" can equally be applied to capitalism, if you ask me. :)

EDIT #2 (sorry): i actually caught a good thing on bbc news last night, hard talk, they had norman lamont and a couple of other economists on. much as i'm not a fan of the tories, lamont had a good point (though critics would say he hardly had a great track record as chancellor): he wasn't complaining about the amount of the bonuses, he was complaining about what they were for- instead of being rewarded for managing risk, they were being rewarded for taking risks... for example all those bonuses for signing people up for mortgages, regardless of whether they could pay them back etc....