The 1%

namenotavailablE

Harvard (admittedly high end) estimate of annual all-in costs:
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/admissions/financial_aid/tuition/index.html

hatrickpatrick

antoobrien wrote: »

The steps that have been taken so far is to facilitate the rebuilding you're talking about, not preventing it. Whether it will go far enough is another story.

Just look at our own banks. They are (with the exception of BOI) almost totally reliant on loan books for their retail funding - instead of acting like businesses and charging their customers for the services they provided. They're in a worse state now than they should be because in a recession credit tightens up - so no new income stream other than hiking the interest and penalties on existing loans. Either way the customer takes the hit for poor business practices.

No I'm not saying I want to pay bank charges, but I see them as being necessary to some degree.

I don't think we're on the same page here. At the end of this, we'll still have a system with for profit banks controlling money suply, with fractional reserve banking, and with another crisis just like this one stored up for a few decades down the line.

What I'm saying is trash the entire system of debt based money circulation and start again with something completely brand new. This system is a total failure, as demonstrated by the last century of constant bipolar economics.

SupaNova

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I don't think we're on the same page here. At the end of this, we'll still have a system with for profit banks controlling money suply, with fractional reserve banking, and with another crisis just like this one stored up for a few decades down the line.

What I'm saying is trash the entire system of debt based money circulation and start again with something completely brand new. This system is a total failure, as demonstrated by the last century of constant bipolar economics.

I can agree that the banking system is unstable and fractional reserve lending is a problem but not much else. Governments and central banks are responsible for the monetary base, money created by private banks is a derivative of the monetary base. Banking should be for profit. Profit and loss lets banks know how they are doing. Banks making profits are ones that are managing their supply of loanable funds well and making successful loans, loans that improve economic output or re-allocate resources to better meet consumer demands. Now imagine the disaster of having removed the need for making profitable loans, imagine the silly unsustainable endeavors that would be undertaken with this new cheap debt free money. The previous boom bust was caused by injecting cheap money at low interest, and the solution in your eyes is to make credit even cheaper, free, and this free money i presume will be handed out by government?

Hayte

SupaNova wrote: »

Banking should be for profit. Profit and loss lets banks know how they are doing. Banks making profits are ones that are managing their supply of loanable funds well and making successful loans, loans that improve economic output or re-allocate resources to better meet consumer demands.

Not sure how you can say this with a straight face in the immediate aftermath of the worst recession since the great depression. One which toppled several heretofore profitable financial institutions like Lehman Brothers, AIG and all the other TARP recipients in the US, every major Irish bank and well...you get the idea.

SupaNova

Hayte wrote: »

Not sure how you can say this with a straight face in the immediate aftermath of the worst recession since the great depression. One which toppled several heretofore profitable financial institutions like Lehman Brothers, AIG and all the other TARP recipients in the US, every major Irish bank and well...you get the idea.

I can say it because i know how artificial credit expansion and inflation, debt free or not, affect the allocation of resources in an economy and distort the price system.

So tell me how this debt free money works, who decides where this money goes and how do they calculate where the money can be used most effectively?

Hayte

Nice red herring.

You said:

SupaNova wrote:

Banking should be for profit. Profit and loss lets banks know how they are doing. Banks making profits are ones that are managing their supply of loanable funds well and making successful loans, loans that improve economic output or re-allocate resources to better meet consumer demands.

Firms like AIG were making record profits shortly before they became totally insolvent (subjected as they were to a tidal wave of margin calls from basically everyone they were selling CDS to).

This would seem to indicate that profit is not an accurate barometer of doing a job well. It is simply an indicator of doing more jobs that pull in fee income. Even more amusingly, many of the loans comprising the structured financial products that AIG were selling CDS protection on were sourced from originators like New Century and Countrywide, which were notorious for poor underwriting standards. Hell Countrywide is STILL hemorrhaging money as a subsidiary of Bank of America Inc. and is contributing to the death spiral of its share price.

SupaNova

Hayte wrote: »

Firms like AIG were making record profits shortly before they became totally insolvent (subjected as they were to a tidal wave of margin calls from basically everyone they were selling CDS to).

So was everybody right down to individuals using their homes as ATM's. The effect of huge credit expansion is that it creates a temporary boom where everyone seems to profit. Artificial credit expansion messes with prices and the profit signal as well as the structure of the economy.

So does this debt free money work in a world absent profit and loss and the price system?

FreudianSlippers

Hayte wrote: »

Nice red herring.

You said:



Firms like AIG were making record profits shortly before they became totally insolvent (subjected as they were to a tidal wave of margin calls from basically everyone they were selling CDS to).

This would seem to indicate that profit is not an accurate barometer of doing a job well. It is simply an indicator of doing more jobs that pull in fee income. Even more amusingly, many of the loans comprising the structured financial products that AIG were selling CDS protection on were sourced from originators like New Century and Countrywide, which were notorious for poor underwriting standards. Hell Countrywide is STILL hemorrhaging money as a subsidiary of Bank of America Inc. and is contributing to the death spiral of its share price.

You're quoting a post that says that banking should be for profit and then discussing an insurance company?

Hayte

The distinction blurs after a certain point because they went long on a large number of massive financial products fielded by investment banks, so they were inextricably part of investment banking. Hell, it wouldn't have worked without CDS. But you can just as well look at investment banks themselves during that time and it wouldn't diminish the point that were hugely profitable before the collapse became apparent i.e. Lehman Brothers.

hatrickpatrick

Here's a good example of a member of the 1%.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/1101/breaking19.html

The former finance director of Anglo Irish Bank, Willie McAteer, has been arrested in connection with alleged financial irregularities at the bank.

Now then. Let's see how far the political establishment will go to protect him?

Has that type of thing ended because FF are no longer in power and FG favour a slightly different social elite? Or will we see the same old slap on the wrist and quiet backhander coming down the line?

Only time will tell.

antoobrien

namenotavailabl wrote: »

Harvard (admittedly high end) estimate of annual all-in costs:
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/admissions/financial_aid/tuition/index.html

That's only twice what NUIG charge non-eu students (approx $17,500 or $18,500 @1.37 €/$)

antoobrien

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I don't think we're on the same page here. At the end of this, we'll still have a system with for profit banks controlling money suply, with fractional reserve banking, and with another crisis just like this one stored up for a few decades down the line.

What I'm saying is trash the entire system of debt based money circulation and start again with something completely brand new. This system is a total failure, as demonstrated by the last century of constant bipolar economics.

I doubt were reading books in the same language, let alone on the same page.

What's wrong with "for profit" trading by any company? See the history of the USSR for what happens in the alternative paradigm. A workers paradise it certainly was not.

Granted rules must be applied, they must not be changed at the whim of the mob (like they were for the past 10-15 years) and they must be strictly adhered to. Those last two bits are why we're where we are - we (the electorate & taxpayers) allowed the likes of seanie fitz to ride roughshod over us. And we liked them for it.

We have an alternative in the credit union movement, but several of those have lost the run of themselves and have been told by the financial regulator that they can't pay out dividends to their members until they sort their houses out. So this isn't a viable alternative either.

So what alternative system are you suggesting by the way and who should control the money?

FreudianSlippers

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Here's a good example of a member of the 1%.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/1101/breaking19.html



Now then. Let's see how far the political establishment will go to protect him?

Has that type of thing ended because FF are no longer in power and FG favour a slightly different social elite? Or will we see the same old slap on the wrist and quiet backhander coming down the line?

Only time will tell.

Luckily, this is out of the government's hands... he has been arrested; it is now time for our independent judiciary to deal with him.

hatrickpatrick

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Luckily, this is out of the government's hands... he has been arrested; it is now time for our independent judiciary to deal with him.

Unless of course the government, following last week's referendum send a nice little informal letter to the aforementioned independent judiciary along the lines of "Convict him? Enjoy your 25% pay cut, trolololololo"

hatrickpatrick

antoobrien wrote: »

I doubt were reading books in the same language, let alone on the same page.

What's wrong with "for profit" trading by any company? See the history of the USSR for what happens in the alternative paradigm. A workers paradise it certainly was not.

Granted rules must be applied, they must not be changed at the whim of the mob (like they were for the past 10-15 years) and they must be strictly adhered to. Those last two bits are why we're where we are - we (the electorate & taxpayers) allowed the likes of seanie fitz to ride roughshod over us. And we liked them for it.

We have an alternative in the credit union movement, but several of those have lost the run of themselves and have been told by the financial regulator that they can't pay out dividends to their members until they sort their houses out. So this isn't a viable alternative either.

So what alternative system are you suggesting by the way and who should control the money?

I have nothingwhatsoever against for profit trading. I have something against for profit BANKING.

Banks sould be institutions which exist solely to provide a service by way of money supply and investment. The problem with for profit banking is that they get into this mad "lend as much as possible and call them all assets" BS we've had. And they cause eventual collapses by building mountains of totally unrepayable debt.

I'm arguing for a system in which the whole process of money creation and money supply is a service, not an exercise which makes those responsible for it immensely powerful. Banks should not have the ability to hold society by the balls and say "yeah we screwed up, but you'd better pay for our mistakes or we take your livelihood down with us". It's crazy.

antoobrien

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I have nothingwhatsoever against for profit trading. I have something against for profit BANKING.

The history of banking is a story of for profit trading. No banker business has done business for solely altruistic reasons, so here's a suggestion for you: get over it.

We had banks that were set up for the aims you gave, they were bought out by other banks and made more profitable.

What you have described is lack of adequate governance. Sound familiar?

edanto

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What I'm saying is trash the entire system of debt based money circulation and start again with something completely brand new. This system is a total failure, as demonstrated by the last century of constant bipolar economics.

You might be interested in the Positive Money campaign.

http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/

The Positive Money Solution wrote:

Firstly, the rules governing banking are changed so that banks can no longer create bank deposits (the numbers in your bank account). Currently these deposits are considered a liability of the bank to the customer - after the reform, they would be classified as real money and only the Bank of England would be able to increase the total quantity of them.

Bannasidhe

Godge wrote: »

"The 1%" would make a great title for one of those conspiracy theory X-Files type programmes about an elite that rule the world from their chalets in Switzerland to their villas in the Bahamas.

Hey - that's my brother you are talking about (yes, he is in the 1%, officially resident in Switzerland, pays himself 50k a month, hasn't paid a penny tax in Ireland since 1979 bar stamp duty on his various properties ) and his villa is in Kinsale not the Bahamas .

prech101

antoobrien wrote: »

The history of banking is a story of for profit trading. No banker business has done business for solely altruistic reasons, so here's a suggestion for you: get over it.

We had banks that were set up for the aims you gave, they were bought out by other banks and made more profitable.

What you have described is lack of adequate governance. Sound familiar?

"What you have described is lack of adequate governance” No **** Sherlock/ask yourself why there is no governance or accountability for that matter
You’re missing the point of banking not being for profit but to be used as a tool to lend/invest in areas of the economy that needs it and will thus benefit the people who make up this economy.

And no I am not against companies/people working hard and making profits, it the absence amounts and then the hoarding of that wealth that I have a problem with.

Get over it,,,, WTF is that supposed to mean.......

antoobrien

prech101 wrote: »

"What you have described is lack of adequate governance” No **** Sherlock/ask yourself why there is no governance or accountability for that matter
You’re missing the point of banking not being for profit but to be used as a tool to lend/invest in areas of the economy that needs it and will thus benefit the people who make up this economy.

Take away profit and businesses won't get involved. More downside than upside as business are run in order to make profit. What is required is the creation and enforcement of a proper regulatory framework to ensure gouging doesn't happen.

prech101 wrote: »

And no I am not against companies/people working hard and making profits, it the absence amounts and then the hoarding of that wealth that I have a problem with.

Make sense please.

prech101 wrote: »

Get over it,,,, WTF is that supposed to mean.......

Taken out of context it means nothing in an of itself. In the context of the original post it's a thinly veiled attack on the naivety of the post being responded to. Let me reiterate - no business gets into a sector for purely altruistic reasons. As soon as that fact permeates some of the thick skulls in this country we can....get over it.

But since many of the people whining about various things don't understand I'll spell out the basics that you should have be able to see if you were through right in school (another reason to cut teachers pay, they haven't been doing the jobs right for the 13 years since I left secondary) school:
Not for profit banking isn't a runner if you want investment.

Profits must be made in order to generate the extra capital required for investment.

Where else do we get the money for investment, direct taxes - that's not fair some people can't afford to pay taxes. Shareholders or donations isn't that patronage the cycle people are claiming needs to be broken?

Bannasidhe

antoobrien wrote: »

Take away profit and businesses won't get involved.

While that is the usual business model - it is not the only one. Take John Lewis for example:

The John Lewis Partnership is a visionary and successful way of doing business, boldly putting the happiness of Partners at the centre of everything it does. It's the embodiment of an ideal, the outcome of nearly a century of endeavour to create a different sort of company, owned by Partners dedicated to serving customers with flair and fairness.
All 76,500 permanent staff are Partners who own 35 John Lewis shops across the UK (29 department stores and six John Lewis at home), 268 Waitrose supermarkets (www.waitrose.com), an online and catalogue business, johnlewis.com (www.johnlewis.com), a production unit and a farm. The business has annual gross sales of over £8.2bn. Partners share in the benefits and profits of a business that puts them first.

When our founder, John Spedan Lewis, set up the Partnership, he was careful to create a governance system, set out in our Constitution, that would be both commercial allowing us to move quickly to stay ahead in a competitive industry, and democratic giving every Partner a voice in the business they co-own. His combination of commercial acumen and corporate conscience, so ahead of its time, is what makes us what we are today.

http://www.johnlewispartnership.co.uk/about.html

hatrickpatrick

You're missing what I'm getting at. A bank shouldn't be a business. It should be a service which facilitates money circulation and should not be run as a business is run.

A bank should exist to serve its purpose, not to make a profit. As has been said previously, a debt based monetary system only works in a world where the economy never shrinks, and we all know that doesn't exist.

FreudianSlippers

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You're missing what I'm getting at. A bank shouldn't be a business. It should be a service which facilitates money circulation and should not be run as a business is run.

A bank should exist to serve its purpose, not to make a profit. As has been said previously, a debt based monetary system only works in a world where the economy never shrinks, and we all know that doesn't exist.

Not to be a downer, but that's just never going to happen. We're better off trying to figure out how to make the system work via regulation and oversight than look at (and this is not meant personally) unrealistic scenarios.

PeadarCo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You're missing what I'm getting at. A bank shouldn't be a business. It should be a service which facilitates money circulation and should not be run as a business is run.

A bank should exist to serve its purpose, not to make a profit. As has been said previously, a debt based monetary system only works in a world where the economy never shrinks, and we all know that doesn't exist.

What about the risk of running a bank. How would you compensate the owners that? If the bank goes bust the owners(the shareholders) get wiped out even if the bank itself is bailed out which will not always happen depending on the size of the bank. The justification for profit is to compensate the owners for the risk they take on in investing in a company and this compensation is not guarenteed.

Cookie_Monster

Bannasidhe wrote: »

While that is the usual business model - it is not the only one. Take John Lewis for example:

http://www.johnlewispartnership.co.uk/about.html

The John Lewis Partnership is a visionary and successful way of doing business, boldly putting the happiness of Partners at the centre of everything it does. It's the embodiment of an ideal, the outcome of nearly a century of endeavour to create a different sort of company, owned by Partners dedicated to serving customers with flair and fairness.
All 76,500 permanent staff are Partners who own 35 John Lewis shops across the UK (29 department stores and six John Lewis at home), 268 Waitrose supermarkets (www.waitrose.com), an online and catalogue business, johnlewis.com (www.johnlewis.com), a production unit and a farm. The business has annual gross sales of over £8.2bn. Partners share in the benefits and profits of a business that puts them first.

When our founder, John Spedan Lewis, set up the Partnership, he was careful to create a governance system, set out in our Constitution, that would be both commercial allowing us to move quickly to stay ahead in a competitive industry, and democratic giving every Partner a voice in the business they co-own. His combination of commercial acumen and corporate conscience, so ahead of its time, is what makes us what we are today.

how's that any different? The staff and owners are getting the benefits and profits, just like any other business. Plenty of businesses are partnerships, legal firms, accounting firms etc.

SupaNova

PeadarCo wrote: »

What about the risk of running a bank. How would you compensate the owners that? If the bank goes bust the owners(the shareholders) get wiped out even if the bank itself is bailed out which will not always happen depending on the size of the bank. The justification for profit is to compensate the owners for the risk they take on in investing in a company and this compensation is not guarenteed.

He doesn't want banks or owners of accumulated capital in the form of saved currency to be compensated or for them to take risks. He wants a government money printer to print currency debt free taking value from existing currency, whilst not having to care about risk, cause hey they can just print more debt free currency if anything goes wrong. It would be our current model of printing money to bail out those with the most government pull taken to the extreme, it would probably end with a hyperinflation occurring within in hours of its introduction(if it were feasible to get off to ground). No one will want to hold this currency and have their purchasing erased in record time.

antoobrien

SupaNova wrote: »

He doesn't want banks or owners of accumulated capital in the form of saved currency to be compensated or for them to take risks. He wants a government money printer to print currency debt free taking value from existing currency, whilst not having to care about risk, cause hey they can just print more debt free currency if anything goes wrong. It would be our current model of printing money to bail out those with the most government pull taken to the extreme, it would probably end with a hyperinflation occurring within in hours of its introduction(if it were feasible to get off to ground). No one will want to hold this currency and have their purchasing erased in record time.

It's also worth noting that the poster in question started a thread titled: How big is our deficit? And how does debt relate to deficit?.

If anybody (not just the poster in question) doesn't know the answer to the second question they shouldn't be suggesting alternative banking systems because they have a fundamental lack of economic knowledge.

ei.sdraob

http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

US #4
IE #7


The protesters here and in US are living in one of the most developed countries in the world with the highest standards of living

To put things into perspective...

davoxx

ei.sdraob wrote: »

http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

US #4
IE #7


The protesters here and in US are living in one of the most developed countries in the world with the highest standards of living

To put things into perspective...

it's just an average and not a standard deviation right?
(i did not research this .. so just asking for some background on these stats)

ei.sdraob

Its explained here

---

I think I already mentioned in this thread and linked to earlier last CSO SILC results which puts Ireland as below average (less inequality) than EU average, with UK and Germany being more unequal than this country