Occupy Movement right about global recession (see MOD WARNING Post #14)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Another speech by Haldane this time to the hippy lefties in the Institute of Economic Affairs.

Full Speech
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/news/2012/100.aspx


Andrew Haldane explains that the size of banks has increased dramatically over recent decades, accompanied by an equally-dramatic rise in banking concentration. That has created expectations of state support: “These expectations generate lower funding costs, in particular for the largest banks, which in turn encourages further expansion and concentration, worsening the too-big-to-fail dilemma.” Estimates of the size of the resulting implicit subsidy for the world’s banks – up to $700bn per year in 2009 – imply that “...Too-big-to-fail had become hard-wired into the structure and pricing of the financial system.”

also

Re-sizing the capital surcharge to a level several times higher than the current upper limit would “...reduce materially expected system-wide losses”. Limits could be placed on bank size. A full separation of investment and commercial banking – “a modern-day Glass-Steagall Act” – would lessen the risk of basic banking activities being starved of human or financial capital. Finally, enhanced banking competition through reduced barriers to entry would reduce the degree of banking concentration, and with it too-big-to-fail.

From another article he wrote
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/speeches/2012/595.aspx

First, a thorough cleansing of the banking stables so that errors of the past — from bad loans to bad advice — are no longer a drag on investor and customer confidence. Second, a reconfiguration of the structure of banking so that in future basic services are no longer contaminated by investment banking activities. Key to that is faithful implementation of the proposals of the Independent Commission on Banking. Indeed, we may need “Vickers plus”.

Vickers refers to Sir John Vickers. Another communist I suspect, he is proposing more financial reforms including proposals to force banks to ringfence their retail operations. His ideas have been championed by a dope smoking slacker called George Osbourne the Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/64286760-b577-11e1-ab92-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2AtO6wb87

This Haldane fella seems to have lost the plot. The Bank of England keep publishing his speeches and papers though.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Interesting idea there. Do you have any links to back that up?
Is this a serious proposition with any likely hood of happening?

Godge

20Cent wrote: »

Another speech by Haldane this time to the hippy lefties in the Institute of Economic Affairs.

Full Speech
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/news/2012/100.aspx


Andrew Haldane explains that the size of banks has increased dramatically over recent decades, accompanied by an equally-dramatic rise in banking concentration. That has created expectations of state support: “These expectations generate lower funding costs, in particular for the largest banks, which in turn encourages further expansion and concentration, worsening the too-big-to-fail dilemma.” Estimates of the size of the resulting implicit subsidy for the world’s banks – up to $700bn per year in 2009 – imply that “...Too-big-to-fail had become hard-wired into the structure and pricing of the financial system.”

also

Re-sizing the capital surcharge to a level several times higher than the current upper limit would “...reduce materially expected system-wide losses”. Limits could be placed on bank size. A full separation of investment and commercial banking – “a modern-day Glass-Steagall Act” – would lessen the risk of basic banking activities being starved of human or financial capital. Finally, enhanced banking competition through reduced barriers to entry would reduce the degree of banking concentration, and with it too-big-to-fail.

From another article he wrote
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/speeches/2012/595.aspx

First, a thorough cleansing of the banking stables so that errors of the past — from bad loans to bad advice — are no longer a drag on investor and customer confidence. Second, a reconfiguration of the structure of banking so that in future basic services are no longer contaminated by investment banking activities. Key to that is faithful implementation of the proposals of the Independent Commission on Banking. Indeed, we may need “Vickers plus”.

Vickers refers to Sir John Vickers. Another communist I suspect, he is proposing more financial reforms including proposals to force banks to ringfence their retail operations. His ideas have been championed by a dope smoking slacker called George Osbourne the Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/64286760-b577-11e1-ab92-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2AtO6wb87

This Haldane fella seems to have lost the plot. The Bank of England keep publishing his speeches and papers though.

Thank you for that. I note through all of the links (except the last one that didn't work) as well as some others that I looked up myself that the only place he gave credit to Occupy was when speaking to the Occupy Movement.

Two possibilities:

(1) He was being nice (condescendingly so?) to his hosts as I suggested pages ago

(2) The contribution of Occupy was so miniscule that it wasn't worth mentioning on another occasion.

I have said all along that if the only evidence of Occupy's success in getting its message heard is one banker speaking in a personal capacity at an Occupy function, then it really hasn't had much success.

20Cent

Godge wrote: »

Thank you for that. I note through all of the links (except the last one that didn't work) as well as some others that I looked up myself that the only place he gave credit to Occupy was when speaking to the Occupy Movement.

Two possibilities:

(1) He was being nice (condescendingly so?) to his hosts as I suggested pages ago

(2) The contribution of Occupy was so miniscule that it wasn't worth mentioning on another occasion.

I have said all along that if the only evidence of Occupy's success in getting its message heard is one banker speaking in a personal capacity at an Occupy function, then it really hasn't had much success.

Maybe you are right we can only speculate. I'd imagine executives from the Bank of England would be quite serious people, who speak carefully and don't write speeches for the laugh then post them on their website. But then again maybe they do I don't follow them very closely.

Looking at the OccupyLondon website their reaction is quite similar to that of a lot of posters here. Scepticism and wanting to see real results before believing it. The post about the speech is headlined "Occupy's analysis praised but this is only the beginning". Not exactly jumping for joy and claiming a "win". A few posters here critisise them for claiming it a win when they clearly do not. Ironically they are just as sceptical and want to see real reform. Personally I think its significant and after reading a bit more on the Bank of England website they seem committed to reform and stopping the out of control financial sector before they suck us all into another crash like 2008. A good thing imo.
Its just a another small step but thats how you get places isn't it!
http://occupylondon.org.uk/archives/17783

KyussBishop

Johnny7 wrote:

This post had been deleted.

Have you even read my posts, or is this a rhetorical method of trying to claim authority on the subject?
If I have been commenting on the generalized nature of Occupy's goals, I clearly know enough about the movement (more than those sneering at it apparently) to comment, despite not being familiar with the detailed makeup of the group.

The "primary generalized" goal, I've already pointed out as a general opposition to income inequality (it's the most simple of generalized goals, which you have to go far out of your way, to pretend to not understand), and you're doing your best to show you either haven't read or are purposely ignoring my posts, by generalizing specific policies onto Occupy, in exactly the way I described.

20Cent does a good (much better) job explaining the generalized nature of the movement, in the successive post.

Permabear wrote:

It's not exactly news that the expectation of state support (a side-effect of big activist government) encourages reckless behavior, which only precipitates the need for state support. This is otherwise called moral hazard.

The problem is not that banks are too large — it's that government is too large.

Ah okey, we should decriminalize fraud (i.e. deregulate) and let banks grow enormously large, such that they have an ever greater share of the market? That's great, so that when the systemic risk created by fraud, causes cyclic failures of massive banks, it's really not the banks fault in the end, but the fault of the depositors because they should know the risks (that's not the banks job at all), despite a completely opaque market with no information? (due to deregulation)

I see no potential for massive economic damage to come from that, or the potential for depositors being left with the **** end of the stick; isn't it a wonder that almost every person you find online promoting these policies, is either working in finance or aspiring to? They really expect people to believe finance can self-regulate, with everyone holding themselves to the utmost moral standard, and avoiding engaging in fraud (with the most stupidly thin semantic arguments backing that up, that tries to hide completely removing any definition of fraud).

How is anyone supposed to take that seriously, with such a ginormous conflict of interest; it's like the fox guarding the henhouse, trying to convince people that they'll do the best most-efficient job guarding it when nobody is watching, and that when things inevitably go wrong it's the hens fault, because "they should have known the risks".

Jonny7

KyussBishop wrote: »

Have you even read my posts, or is this a rhetorical method of trying to claim authority on the subject?
If I have been commenting on the generalized nature of Occupy's goals, I clearly know enough about the movement (more than those sneering at it apparently) to comment, despite not being familiar with the detailed makeup of the group.

The "primary generalized" goal, I've already pointed out as a general opposition to income inequality (it's the most simple of generalized goals, which you have to go far out of your way, to pretend to not understand), and you're doing your best to show you either haven't read or are purposely ignoring my posts, by generalizing specific policies onto Occupy, in exactly the way I described.

Income inequality is bad.. I'm not really aware of anyone who thinks it's exactly good, I guess we can thank Occupy for pointing this out to us? What a goal. I bet the 99% in the world who can spend weeks squatting and living off Burger King are glad they pointed that out.

Then again, Occupy were amazing at coming up with issues, (first world) problems, grievances, you name it - this is where they excelled, hats off, everything, I mean everything was in there.

Yeah .. not so much with workable proposed solutions.

Most idiotic protest movement... ever. Then again I love to bash them.

karma_

Jonny7 wrote: »

Income inequality is bad.. I'm not really aware of anyone who thinks it's exactly good, I guess we can thank Occupy for pointing this out to us? What a goal. I bet the 99% in the world who can spend weeks squatting and living off Burger King are glad they pointed that out.

Then again, Occupy were amazing at coming up with issues, (first world) problems, grievances, you name it - this is where they excelled, hats off, everything, I mean everything was in there.

Yeah .. not so much with workable proposed solutions.

Most idiotic protest movement... ever. Then again I love to bash them.

This post is like a puddle, a whole lot of surface area and very little depth.

KyussBishop

Jonny7 wrote:

...

So you even acknowledge the legitimacy of their base goal, therefore your support of that base goal, and then denigrate their success in promoting discussion of that because...why exactly?

The entire point is that they don't commit to specific solutions, even if individual supporters are free to, because the movement is supposed to tackle that wider problem without the divisiveness of putting it's name behind individual policies.

So, seeing as the whole principle of the movement is actually something you're in agreement with, that makes the denigration especially silly, and seem a lot like denigration of the very idea of protesting in general.

Occupy do not have to provide solutions, they can provide a valuable benefit just through promoting discussion of the problems (as they have done, quite successfully); it's members are free to suggest their own solutions for promoting debate, but taking members proposed solutions and generalizing them to the whole group (as if a homogeneous entity) is fallacious, often knowingly so, and most especially when used as a stick to beat the entire protest movement.


I mean really, it seems awfully petty to denigrate their very visible success in promoting discussion of income inequality, using arguments people know to be fallacious, and when you have no principled disagreement with that.

yore

KyussBishop wrote: »

Heh, ya you're right I guess, anyone who has a problem with anything in the western world should just shut up; it's not as bad as Somalia after all so what have they got to complain about anyway, the rabble rousing rousers.

No. you're twisting my words. Let them protest all they like; just don't portray it as a global equality movement of the 99%. Because it's not. It's the 95th percentile wanting what the 99th percentile want. They don't give a shit about the 95% below them.

I'm not saying they have to give a shit about them or even should give a shit about them. Just don't pretend to represent them when they don't!

KyussBishop

yore wrote: »

No. you're twisting my words. Let them protest all they like; just don't portray it as a global equality movement of the 99%. Because it's not. It's the 95th percentile wanting what the 99th percentile want. They don't give a shit about the 95% below them.

I'm not saying they have to give a shit about them or even should give a shit about them. Just don't pretend to represent them when they don't!

No, you're twisting their (Occupy and it's members) arguments/goals and applying them to the entire population of the planet, in a farcical shifting of the goalposts, that tries to undermine the credibility of their general goal.

It's no different to complaining about people that criticize the US, saying "well why don't you criticize Russia, China, x, y, z, etc. too?" or "it's worse in country x, y, z, what are you complaining about?", assuming they don't have any criticisms of those countries on similar grounds.

More so, you claim to be able to read their minds apparently, saying they don't give a toss about people in the developing world who are worse off, which is again a completely fallacious argument.


What do you know about any of their motives? To you, trying to tackle income inequality in the western world is apparently an impossibility, because it must be tackled in the whole world all at once, which is such a comically stretched argument that it's, to be honest, not really worth responding to (but here I am regardless).


If 1% of the people in the US, hold an overwhelming majority of the wealth, and take up to 90% of earnings, you bloody well can argue against that on grounds of inequality (just as you can argue against western exploitation of the developing world, on grounds of inequality).

Asserting that peoples motives are instead for selfish reasons, is just another variation of the utterly stupid begrudgery argument, and is basically an apologist argument in favour of income inequality, as it tries to discredit any criticisms of income inequality.

yore

KyussBishop wrote: »

No, you're twisting their (Occupy and it's members) arguments/goals and applying them to the entire population of the planet, in a farcical shifting of the goalposts, that tries to undermine the credibility of their general goal.

It's no different to complaining about people that criticize the US, saying "well why don't you criticize Russia, China, x, y, z, etc. too?" or "it's worse in country x, y, z, what are you complaining about?", assuming they don't have any criticisms of those countries on similar grounds.

More so, you claim to be able to read their minds apparently, saying they don't give a toss about people in the developing world who are worse off, which is again a completely fallacious argument.


What do you know about any of their motives? To you, trying to tackle income inequality in the western world is apparently an impossibility, because it must be tackled in the whole world all at once, which is such a comically stretched argument that it's, to be honest, not really worth responding to (but here I am regardless).


If 1% of the people in the US, hold an overwhelming majority of the wealth, and take up to 90% of earnings, you bloody well can argue against that on grounds of inequality (just as you can argue against western exploitation of the developing world, on grounds of inequality).

Asserting that peoples motives are instead for selfish reasons, is just another variation of the utterly stupid begrudgery argument, and is basically an apologist argument in favour of income inequality, as it tries to discredit any criticisms of income inequality.

No. Criticising the US/China etc are distinct issues.

If you are an American protesting against US military policy that's fine. If you want to also criticise Chinese military policy for example, it doesn't effect your motivation for going against US policy. Making Chinese policy "fairer" doesn't negate the effect of making US policy fairer.

In the case of income equality it does. They want higher incomes. But if the system was fairer on the global scale they claim to represent, they would end up with lower incomes.
One of the posters used the phrase "zero sum game". It might have been yourself. Ethics/military policy/ politics is not a zero sum game. Money/Income can be argued to be. (I'm not saying it is, but it's certainly closer to one than)


It'd be a bit like junior consultants going on strike because they wanted "income equality and fairness" for themselves in relation to what senior consultants get and saying they were representing the less well off 95% of Irish society.

Jonny7

KyussBishop wrote: »

So you even acknowledge the legitimacy of their base goal, therefore your support of that base goal, and then denigrate their success in promoting discussion of that because...why exactly?

Huh?

.."income inequality", specifically what? between doctors and street sweepers? between first world and third world? between middle and lower class?

What better poster child than someone with a iphone and dreadlocks who can spend months on a street in a "hideously broken" society to highlight income inequality isn't there.

But wait.. there were other goals.. many many more goals.. millions of goals in fact..

It's almost like they were spreading the earth-shatteringly informative message that "unfairness is unfair!"..

****ing douchebags

Anything else?

karma_

Jonny7 wrote: »

Huh?

.."income inequality", specifically what? between doctors and street sweepers? between first world and third world? between middle and lower class?

Have you not been paying attention? Between the 1% at the very pinnacle of the pyramid who harvest in vast amounts of wealth and pay little to no tatex and everyone else beneath them. It's not that hard to deduce this one mate, it was their slogan for crying out loud.

What better poster child than someone with a iphone and dreadlocks who can spend months on a street in a "hideously broken" society to highlight income inequality isn't there.

Just an ad hominem attack, what matter their style of clothes, the phone they carry or the way they wear their hair?

But wait.. there were other goals.. many many more goals.. millions of goals in fact..

It's almost like they were spreading the earth-shatteringly informative message that "unfairness is unfair!"..

****ing douchebags

Anything else?

You're a long time member of the forum here and you should know better than to post this drivel, it lacks any substance whatsoever.

K-9

Jonny7 wrote: »

Income inequality is bad.. I'm not really aware of anyone who thinks it's exactly good, I guess we can thank Occupy for pointing this out to us? What a goal. I bet the 99% in the world who can spend weeks squatting and living off Burger King are glad they pointed that out.

Then again, Occupy were amazing at coming up with issues, (first world) problems, grievances, you name it - this is where they excelled, hats off, everything, I mean everything was in there.

Yeah .. not so much with workable proposed solutions.

Most idiotic protest movement... ever. Then again I love to bash them.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Huh?

.."income inequality", specifically what? between doctors and street sweepers? between first world and third world? between middle and lower class?

What better poster child than someone with a iphone and dreadlocks who can spend months on a street in a "hideously broken" society to highlight income inequality isn't there.

But wait.. there were other goals.. many many more goals.. millions of goals in fact..

It's almost like they were spreading the earth-shatteringly informative message that "unfairness is unfair!"..

****ing douchebags

Anything else?

I think we get you don't like them at this stage. Don't post in this thread again.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Could you please link to Occupy claiming credit for this? If you look at Occupy Londons website you can see that their reaction to Holdane is sceptical and saying its just a start they are not claiming credit at all. This idea that they are jumping around patting themselves on the back has been posted a few times in this thread with zero evidence.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I guess you know more than a Bank of England executive, I think he's in a better position to know about it then yourself.

KyussBishop

yore wrote: »

No. Criticising the US/China etc are distinct issues.

If you are an American protesting against US military policy that's fine. If you want to also criticise Chinese military policy for example, it doesn't effect your motivation for going against US policy. Making Chinese policy "fairer" doesn't negate the effect of making US policy fairer.

In the case of income equality it does. They want higher incomes. But if the system was fairer on the global scale they claim to represent, they would end up with lower incomes.
One of the posters used the phrase "zero sum game". It might have been yourself. Ethics/military policy/ politics is not a zero sum game. Money/Income can be argued to be. (I'm not saying it is, but it's certainly closer to one than)


It'd be a bit like junior consultants going on strike because they wanted "income equality and fairness" for themselves in relation to what senior consultants get and saying they were representing the less well off 95% of Irish society.

And....why can't people criticize income inequality in their own country, just like the distinct issues of military policy in US, China etc.?

Why exactly, must it be taken in the context of the entire planet, when people can only influence the politics of the country they are in?

What has income inequality got to do with people wanting higher incomes either? That's another stretch towards the begrudgery type argument.
Income inequality is about the massively disproportionate income a small percentage of people get, much of which is based on economic rent seeking of various kinds, that effectively taxes everyone in society; that has nothing to do with wanting higher wages.

Just look at LIBOR for instance, that is economic rent seeking on an fundamental and epic scale, which defrauded many governments (both national and local in many cases, and thus their countries/counties population); that was a cost on everyone, and a lot of these rent seeking activities effectively amount to an additional tax on society, especially where essential commodities are concerned.

The irony and zero-sum game here, is that anyone supporting income inequality hoping to become part of the 'privileged few' (whether they have the honesty to state that boldly or not), is more statistically likely to push themselves down rather than reach up, short of lavishly sucking up to someone already there.

Godge

20Cent wrote: »

Could you please link to Occupy claiming credit for this? If you look at Occupy Londons website you can see that their reaction to Holdane is sceptical and saying its just a start they are not claiming credit at all. This idea that they are jumping around patting themselves on the back has been posted a few times in this thread with zero evidence.


.

Are you having a laugh? The thread title is "Occupy Movement right about global recession", the OP is known from previous threads as a prominent Occupy supporter. If Occupy are sceptical, then why the thread?

One swallow does not make a summer. One banker in one speech to an Occupy-organised meeting who makes a few platitudes about Occupy does not turn into a mass acknowledgement (or even a thread of yaysayers) that Occupy were right. Do you understand that point?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Good loser

KyussBishop wrote: »

And....why can't people criticize income inequality in their own country, just like the distinct issues of military policy in US, China etc.?

Why exactly, must it be taken in the context of the entire planet, when people can only influence the politics of the country they are in?

What has income inequality got to do with people wanting higher incomes either? That's another stretch towards the begrudgery type argument.
Income inequality is about the massively disproportionate income a small percentage of people get, much of which is based on economic rent seeking of various kinds, that effectively taxes everyone in society; that has nothing to do with wanting higher wages.

Just look at LIBOR for instance, that is economic rent seeking on an fundamental and epic scale, which defrauded many governments (both national and local in many cases, and thus their countries/counties population); that was a cost on everyone, and a lot of these rent seeking activities effectively amount to an additional tax on society, especially where essential commodities are concerned.

The irony and zero-sum game here, is that anyone supporting income inequality hoping to become part of the 'privileged few' (whether they have the honesty to state that boldly or not), is more statistically likely to push themselves down rather than reach up, short of lavishly sucking up to someone already there.

I have no problem with income inequality.

It's fundamental in a free society.

It provides incentive to work, innovate and work harder than others.

Risk/business is rewarded when it is well judged (J P McManus and countless others) and otherwise when not (Sean Quinn and countless others).

This 'rent seeking' you mention; are you referring to the vested interests of the professions such as barristers and doctors or the unions (average ESB pay €95,000)? These can be tackled by laws on competition.

Or are you referring to jockeys, pop stars, actors, footballers, golfers?

Or do you want the State to put higher and higher taxes on those high earners to redistribute the money? And leave the income inequality untouched?

Surely if inequality is the highest principle large elements of the tax take should be sent to Africa?

You see otherwise 'inequality' arguments could be used as paths to power or placement. It's hard to know when these guys are sincere and what would satisfy them.

KyussBishop

Good loser wrote: »

I have no problem with income inequality.

It's fundamental in a free society.

It provides incentive to work, innovate and work harder than others.

Risk/business is rewarded when it is well judged (J P McManus and countless others) and otherwise when not (Sean Quinn and countless others).

This 'rent seeking' you mention; are you referring to the vested interests of the professions such as barristers and doctors or the unions (average ESB pay €95,000)? These can be tackled by laws on competition.

Or are you referring to jockeys, pop stars, actors, footballers, golfers?

Or do you want the State to put higher and higher taxes on those high earners to redistribute the money? And leave the income inequality untouched?

Surely if inequality is the highest principle large elements of the tax take should be sent to Africa?

You see otherwise 'inequality' arguments could be used as paths to power or placement. It's hard to know when these guys are sincere and what would satisfy them.

Issues affecting income inequality are not as simple as some people having higher wages than others, or some people gaining personal gain through smart investments or entrepreneurialism; I've no problem with people being (handsomely) rewarded for their genuine hard-worked efforts, but do have a problem with fraud, varieties of economic rent seeking, and other illegal or socially-harmful practices, that affect income equality.
Many different things causally factor into measurements of income inequality, so it doesn't make sense to say you are 'for' it, because that could easily mean you are for allowing systemic fraud in finance, for the sake of worsening income inequality; I'm not saying you are for that, just showing what it can mean, when you say you're 'for' it.

Most of the questions you ask there, can be answered with reference to the post you quote; I also gave a pretty specific example of the kind of rent seeking I'm talking about (regarding LIBOR manipulation/fraud).

I agree about laws on competition i.e. regulations, particularly regarding fraud and systemic risk in finance; that's one of the most significant areas where income inequality has been worsened, through lack of enforcement of regulation, and outright fraud.


Why would we send tax income to Africa? International aid is a demonstrable failure at trying to resolve issues in poor nations, and can often exacerbate problems by free aid e.g. food preventing people from being able to sustain a livelihood, as they can't compete with the free aid.

Not to say all aid is bad or inherently counterproductive, but the idea that income inequality must be tackled only on a global scale, or not at all is silly and impractical, and it is most obvious that it can and should be tackled within our local economic/political system for its own sake, and there's no reason that can't be done in tandem with assisting developing nations as well, as that usually revolves around completely separate policies.

In the end, we have political/economic influence over our own country, and little influence over the politics/economics of others (and neither should we, outside of international diplomacy), so just what are we meant to do about the rest of the world anyway? It's up to other countries to nurture a healthy economy (and for us to look after our own too), and the best way we can assist other countries with that on a fundamental level, is simply through trade.

yore

KyussBishop wrote: »

And....why can't people criticize income inequality in their own country, just like the distinct issues of military policy in US, China etc.?

Why exactly, must it be taken in the context of the entire planet, when people can only influence the politics of the country they are in?

You've find that I've stated that they can protest all they like but just they can't legitimately be giving it the high and mighty "global movement for the 99%" spiel.

KyussBishop

Ah okey, so we've been debating that thin a semantic distinction; good to know. I'll contact Occupy and let them know to strike out the 'global' part

20Cent

This post had been deleted.[/QUOTE]

Its not me making the claim its Andrew Haldane from the Bank of England, the guy responsible for developing Bank policy on financial stability issues. This is very clear from the op and has been repeated ad nauseum throughout the thread.

yore

KyussBishop wrote: »

Ah okey, so we've been debating that thin a semantic distinction; good to know. I'll contact Occupy and let them know to strike out the 'global' part

Seeing as you're talking semantics, don't just isolate the word "global"; also strike out the 99%. Replace it with the word "me".

I gave a hypothetical example of junior consultants striking/protesting to get more of what senior consultants have. They're entitled to do so, but they can't claim to represent the rights everyone else.


This is going off thread. Back to the subject, a "movement" with no policy or structure cannot claim credit, or be attributed credit by anyone else, for anything.

Good loser

KyussBishop wrote: »

Issues affecting income inequality are not as simple as some people having higher wages than others, or some people gaining personal gain through smart investments or entrepreneurialism; I've no problem with people being (handsomely) rewarded for their genuine hard-worked efforts, but do have a problem with fraud, varieties of economic rent seeking, and other illegal or socially-harmful practices, that affect income equality.
Many different things causally factor into measurements of income inequality, so it doesn't make sense to say you are 'for' it, because that could easily mean you are for allowing systemic fraud in finance, for the sake of worsening income inequality; I'm not saying you are for that, just showing what it can mean, when you say you're 'for' it.

Most of the questions you ask there, can be answered with reference to the post you quote; I also gave a pretty specific example of the kind of rent seeking I'm talking about (regarding LIBOR manipulation/fraud).

I agree about laws on competition i.e. regulations, particularly regarding fraud and systemic risk in finance; that's one of the most significant areas where income inequality has been worsened, through lack of enforcement of regulation, and outright fraud.


Why would we send tax income to Africa? International aid is a demonstrable failure at trying to resolve issues in poor nations, and can often exacerbate problems by free aid e.g. food preventing people from being able to sustain a livelihood, as they can't compete with the free aid.

Not to say all aid is bad or inherently counterproductive, but the idea that income inequality must be tackled only on a global scale, or not at all is silly and impractical, and it is most obvious that it can and should be tackled within our local economic/political system for its own sake, and there's no reason that can't be done in tandem with assisting developing nations as well, as that usually revolves around completely separate policies.

In the end, we have political/economic influence over our own country, and little influence over the politics/economics of others (and neither should we, outside of international diplomacy), so just what are we meant to do about the rest of the world anyway? It's up to other countries to nurture a healthy economy (and for us to look after our own too), and the best way we can assist other countries with that on a fundamental level, is simply through trade.

This Occupy movement is against income inequality it seems (can't be bothered checking the detail of their stuff).

If they, and others, are against it there is no reason why I should not be in favour of it.

As I said it is essential for freedom and enterprise.

It is just so hard to get a fix on what those that oppose it want.

It is very difficult to understand how the LIBOR fixing scandal that you cite as an example illustrates anything other than sharp practice by a few insiders to the detriment of other insiders which happens in every market.
Is it any different from rewinding the mileage clock in cars, for example?

Being more practical, over the last ten years this country witnessed imo the greatest upheavel in class incomes any country ever experienced. The working class, specifically those in the building and allied industries, vaulted over the middle class professionals into very high wage positions. Income equality was hugely advanced (I was all for it) yet it has left the country in a perilous state. All is now reversed.

In conclusion I don't think this there is any scandalous income inequality in this country - or in Britain, or Germany or Holland etc. There is an inequity between State employees and others. The situation is quite different in the USA.

KyussBishop

yore wrote: »

Seeing as you're talking semantics, don't just isolate the word "global"; also strike out the 99%. Replace it with the word "me".

I gave a hypothetical example of junior consultants striking/protesting to get more of what senior consultants have. They're entitled to do so, but they can't claim to represent the rights everyone else.


This is going off thread. Back to the subject, a "movement" with no policy or structure cannot claim credit, or be attributed credit by anyone else, for anything.

Oh I see, we've just figured out the novel concept of considering income inequality on a country-by-country basis, and now the goalposts are moved yet again so that now the 99 percent has to be considered on a global basis.

I wonder if it's possible to consider the 99% on a country by country basis? That would be an informative discovery. No I guess not, it's not possible to do that, so the 99% really must mean 'me'.


It's such a stupid and knowingly paper-thin argument really (and for the sole purpose of trying to apply an equally stupid begrudgery accusation to Occupy), that I regret taking the time to even get into the income inequality side of it earlier.

KyussBishop

Good loser wrote: »

This Occupy movement is against income inequality it seems (can't be bothered checking the detail of their stuff).

If they, and others, are against it there is no reason why I should not be in favour of it.

As I said it is essential for freedom and enterprise.

It is just so hard to get a fix on what those that oppose it want.

It is very difficult to understand how the LIBOR fixing scandal that you cite as an example illustrates anything other than sharp practice by a few insiders to the detriment of other insiders which happens in every market.
Is it any different from rewinding the mileage clock in cars, for example?

Being more practical, over the last ten years this country witnessed imo the greatest upheavel in class incomes any country ever experienced. The working class, specifically those in the building and allied industries, vaulted over the middle class professionals into very high wage positions. Income equality was hugely advanced (I was all for it) yet it has left the country in a perilous state. All is now reversed.

In conclusion I don't think this there is any scandalous income inequality in this country - or in Britain, or Germany or Holland etc. There is an inequity between State employees and others. The situation is quite different in the USA.

Heh, I was going to credit you on at least straight-out admitting you support fraud and income inequality for sake of 'enterprise' profit, where others don't even have the honesty to admit that, despite supporting it, though later on you do seem to tip-toe around the issue and just offer apologist arguments, which deny the effects of the fraud.

One example, is that large banks rate-fixed LIBOR, so they could get favourable rates on US (local) government infrastructure projects, where part of the deal was based on LIBOR, thus fraudulently gaining extra profit from the US government and thus taking money from the US people.

That cost everyone money, where their local or national government was affected, and through decriminalizing fraud (which is inherent to deregulation), finance wants to impose these kinds of rent seeking activities on all of society.

LIBOR also affected mortgages, student loans, and many forms of financial derivatives/products, so it pretty much affected all of society in the US, even when you don't consider the direct effects it had on the US government, on both a national and local level.


This kind of stuff is why it's no surprise that grand majority of people you find promoting these kinds of policies, are either already working in or aspiring to work in finance; it is such an enormous conflict of interest, that it's impossible to believe many are being honest in their arguments, especially when you seen various forms of argumentative acrobatics/flip-flopping to avoid addressing some issues; the far more obvious conclusion a lot of the time (which none will have the honesty to admit), is choice of policy based on personal self-interest alone, knowing much of it is promoted with false arguments.