OT - budgets

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8406670.stm
[ "Captain" Darling short of 36 billion ]
And I thought my housekeeping was bad!
Anyone see the last episode of Spooks where the country is about to go formally bankrupt and Roz saves the day by getting medieval on some gangsta- banker's ass? Makes you wonder...
They could save 1.5 billion by taking the top layer of the RBS investment banking arm outside and putting them on community service for 2 years.
--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I fully understand people's anger at the bankers, but what I don't understand is where the same people think the wealth and taxes are going to come from to get the UK out of this recession.
When "New" Labour came to power, 20% of the UK's GDP came from manufacturing. That is now down to 11%. The importance of the City of London and its investment bankers is therefore even greater now than ever before.
Most of the shortfall in Corporation Tax receipts - by far the biggest hole in Captain Darling's rapidly sinking ship - is a result of the slump in profits from banking and insurance. So however much we hate the bankers, unless the financial sector gets its arse back into gear double quick, we may be in for a long and very painful recession.
Perhaps putting them on community service is not such a good idea?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The very same who got us in this mess? Throw them out and get some new ones in.
--
*Why isn't 11 pronounced onety one? *

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:49:37 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"

Although it grieves me to say it, our economy is more than ever dependent on these people, and we will never get out of recession without a healthy financial sector.
Throw them out? It's like electing a "new" government only to find out that they are even worse than the last lot.
Or wanting rid of a lying, warmongering Prime Minister only to find him replaced with an even more incompetent "clunking great fist".
Such is life.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:13:05 +0000, Bruce wrote:

Yes exactly. Banking is the new North Sea Oil and the effect it has had on the UK for the past decade is vast. Without it none of the last 10 year's boom we've enjoyed (and squandered? again?) would have happened. It's touching to hear people thinking that one group of bankers is any better or worse than any others. When it's a pretty good bet that any of them would have done the same, in the same position. The only difference is the sheer dumb luck of whether someone worked for a bank that made randomly good or randomly unlucky bets.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
pete wrote:

No: there were banks of quality that steered clear of high leverage - HSBC most notably- and toxic assets.
Barclays may have got away by the skin of their teeth. Lloyds might have made it if they hadn't rushed into HBOS.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bruce wrote:

Not only that, many of the so called "bonuses" were tied to a percentage of the profits made by the banks. Profits which the exchequer will no doubt have a much larger slice out of than the bankers will in bonus payments.
You also have to marvel at the government's policy of "quantitative easing" - basically having the bank of England buy up huge quantities of gilts. Shame no one ever taught the chancellor some basic economics. You put a huge demand on something, and then back that with government (i.e. our) cash, and the price is going to go up. So the investment bankers do what investment bankers do best when they see a sure thing that is only going to go up in value. The govt then acts all surprised when they end up trousering the money they are pumping out! Where else did they think it was going to go?
Still the real shit will hit the fan if we lose our AAA credit rating!
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:02:05 +0000, John Rumm

With the bankers, we were doomed. But without them, things would be even worse. :-(

In the old days, "quantitative easing" was more accurately described as "printing money".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, I don't understand this either. The City provides something between 28% and 33% of the Treasury's annual income, and is one of the world's top 3 financial centres. OK, they screwed up, but closing down that sector is just chucking the baby out with the bathwater, and permanent loss of that revenue stream leaves us far more screwed than we already are.

Quite. Requiring financial institutions to maintain capital reserves at a level to match their risk taking (which is being done) seemed like a good way to mitigate the risk. Launching a witch hunt is just pandering to the masses for retribution, which can only do tremendous damage (because the masses don't actually know what the City does).
--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:10:15 +0000 (UTC), snipped-for-privacy@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) wrote:

Exactly.
The masses don't understand a lot of things, not just the City.
For example, they say they don't "believe in" climate change, as if it was no more than an issue of personal religious faith, and you could choose whether to believe it or not. That's like saying you don't "believe in" income tax, or heart disease.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Climate change is very real and has always been. Man made climate change is the new religion.
AGW
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't see that it's impossible to have a religion grounded in reliable scientific predictions. Perhaps you need a new turn of phrase?
#Paul
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Dec 16, 12:08pm, snipped-for-privacy@moo.uklinux.net wrote:

Indeed.
No. It's a religion in the sense of here's the truth, disbelievers will not be tolerated.
MBQ
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In this hypothetical case where disbelievers are _actually_ wrong (or as close to wrongness as science allows), why should an interminable _public_ repetition of inaccurate views remain unopposed? Especially if they keep repeating their nonsense ad nauseum, are unable to come up with well argued scientific arguments or demonstrate any technical knowledege -- and persist in misinforming others on a matter of considerable importance?
#Paul
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember snipped-for-privacy@moo.uklinux.net saying something like:

Personally, I'm fed up with preaching wankers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ahem: "In this hypothetical case". I was trying to avoid a specific climate-change angle so as to make a point of principle.
And even if we decide to admit the climate-change case, note that I used the phrase "as close to wrongness as science allows" -- perhaps a little vague, but "the vast majority of scientists have scientific grounds to consider you wrong" seemed unwieldy.
Lastly, finding three people disagreeing point of view on topix X is hardly a triumph -- I could probably find more who disagree on the nature or definition of the Poynting vector, a far less complex subject than climate. If you could demonstrate that the climate-science community had no overall & significant majority one way or another, that would be worth noting.
#Paul
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wibbled on Thursday 17 December 2009 20:45

Well put argument.
I'm just deeply suspicious because of the political swerve on it and the way that proponents seem to act in a manner more befitting to religious zealots.
If the whole thing is as clear cut as some would like to believe, I wouldn't expect to have 2 senior academics from top institutes in the relevant field holding somewhat dissimilar views.
--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim W wrote:

Lindzen is a Merkin and a self confessed denier. Given the attitude of the Cheney Administration it is hardly surprising that deniers hold positions of authority the other side of the pond. And if he wasn't a denier then the debate wouldn't have been staged.
As Lindzen is a denier it is only to be expected that he pulled a few of the deniers typical tricks. To single out only 2. The first misleading, the second downright dishonest as far as I can see.
1."The temperature anomaly for 2008 was not statistically significantly different from 1987."
Conveniently ignoring the fact that all the other years from 2000 onwards including 2009 are.
2 "And still the conclusion is that no one knows because the changes argued about would take thousands of years to raise sea levels discernibly."
Funny that those on the other side are predicting sea level rises of noticeable size by the end of the century and, depending on what exactly he was on about, are already reporting significant rises in sea level due to expansion as the seas warm.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That would be the one that the MET office doesn't think was as warm as NASA does.

Facts? not from wiki though.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dennis@home wrote:

I am not sure what you mean. There are after all 10 years in the period 2000 - 2009. If you meant to refer to 2005, the year that NASA ranks highest and the Met Office second highest, that is of course one of the years that is significantly warmer than 1987. Lindzen incidentally, despite being a Merkin, chose to ignore 2005 and to refer to 1998 as "a relative maximum".

Again I am not sure what you mean. It appears to me that Lindzen is saying that even if the warmers get the rate of ice melt they predict there will not be a discernible rise in sea level even in a thousand years. Seeing the source on this occasion was the Times Online it obviously wasn't from Wikipedia. I wouldn't consider the Times a particularly trustworthy source but as the quotation is direct from the horse's mouth it is at least an accurate repetition of what Lindzen wrote.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.