PDA

View Full Version : A bit of economic panic and ...



sasguru
22nd September 2008, 15:14
...all the socialist regulators start coming out of the woodwork. As if top down regulation will provide stability and prosperity. It never has and never will. Luckily capitalists will always find ways round whatever regulations are put up and long may that continue.
Nothing fundamental has happened, the markets have regulated themselves as they always do and decided who should go and who should stay. Its a complex and beautiful system that simplistic deterministic cretins don't understand.
So for now all the useless monkeys will gibber that they were right all along yadda yadda blah blah, while the system will sort itself out and carry on much as it's always been.
The wise will note that history repeats itself and know when to take risks to prosper.:music:

DimPrawn
22nd September 2008, 15:15
..
The wise will note that history repeats itself and know when to take risks to prosper.:music:

Amen to that.

For example, the City boyz might for forked, but there are bargains to be had.

http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/717509.htm

Bob Dalek
22nd September 2008, 15:16
"Its a complex and beautiful system that simplistic deterministic cretins don't understand."

And nor do the geniuses who run it.

DimPrawn
22nd September 2008, 15:18
Same London boy who needs to shift the 911 Turbo quick:

http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/717544.htm

Oh Dear. That bonus didn't materialise did it? :laugh

sasguru
22nd September 2008, 15:20
"Its a complex and beautiful system that simplistic deterministic cretins don't understand."

And nor do the geniuses who run it.

No one does:

"......every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. .."

Diver
22nd September 2008, 15:21
Same London boy who needs to shift the 911 Turbo quick:

http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/717544.htm

Oh Dear. That bonus didn't materialise did it? :laugh

It tears my heart out :(

:banana: :yay: :laugh

Moscow Mule
22nd September 2008, 15:22
Same London boy who needs to shift the 911 Turbo quick:

http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/717544.htm

Oh Dear. That bonus didn't materialise did it? :laugh

He still knows how to put a mark on a commodity though - Selling for £159995, receipt in the picture is for £135640...

Troll
22nd September 2008, 15:24
Same London boy who needs to shift the 911 Turbo quick:

http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/717544.htm

Oh Dear. That bonus didn't materialise did it? :laughGood to see he'd specified cruise control... can't go wrong with that

expat
22nd September 2008, 15:33
Same London boy who needs to shift the 911 Turbo quick:

http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/717544.htm

Oh Dear. That bonus didn't materialise did it? :laughCost 135k. Selling 160k on delivery. Am I missing something, this looks in the black to me?

Cyberman
22nd September 2008, 19:21
...all the socialist regulators start coming out of the woodwork. As if top down regulation will provide stability and prosperity. It never has and never will. Luckily capitalists will always find ways round whatever regulations are put up and long may that continue.
Nothing fundamental has happened, the markets have regulated themselves as they always do and decided who should go and who should stay. Its a complex and beautiful system that simplistic deterministic cretins don't understand.
So for now all the useless monkeys will gibber that they were right all along yadda yadda blah blah, while the system will sort itself out and carry on much as it's always been.
The wise will note that history repeats itself and know when to take risks to prosper.:music:



I completely agree. Existing regulation should have been enough to spot problems looming on the horizon, and any responsible government should have realised that living on credit was unsustainable.
The FSA and HMG are culpable because they failed to notice (or noticed but did not act!!) that banks were lending far beyond their asset cover by virtue of selling mortgages onto other banks as SIVs.
Personally, I have been opposed to shorting for over 8 years, having watched a company that I was heavily invested in go under due in major part to these activities.
Shorting was also a factor in the demise of Northern Rock, so yet again HMG have acted belatedly more than a year after a catastrophic event. It was too late for Northern Rock and it is now too late for New Lie. :D

Gonzo
22nd September 2008, 22:40
Same London boy who needs to shift the 911 Turbo quick:

http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/717544.htm

Oh Dear. That bonus didn't materialise did it? :laughFar be it from me to burst the bubble of anyone who has got rich in the last decade on the back of rising property values, but, a quick google shows that Mr Bullerwell is a big-time "Buy-to-let" magnate, not a city-boy. :p

Diver
23rd September 2008, 06:05
Far be it from me to burst the bubble of anyone who has got rich in the last decade on the back of rising property values, but, a quick google shows that Mr Bullerwell is a big-time "Buy-to-let" magnate, not a city-boy. :p

:spel Buy to let with a hefty mortgage on each property magnate :wink

ace00
23rd September 2008, 08:10
No one does:

"......every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. .."


Bit dated though, what is it Adam Smith?
I would say that today the domestic is not preferred over the foreign.
Also there is the institutional weakness of the drive to profit. Basically, IBs know there's a bubble but they can't not buy into it because if they do they lose relative profitability and go under. So the conglomeration of IB & regular banks could be a good thing, but I have no trust in politicians so..........
But yes, overall, go capitalism!

sasguru
23rd September 2008, 08:17
Bit dated though, what is it Adam Smith?
I would say that today the domestic is not preferred over the foreign.
Also there is the institutional weakness of the drive to profit. Basically, IBs know there's a bubble but they can't not buy into it because if they do they lose relative profitability and go under. So the conglomeration of IB & regular banks could be a good thing, but I have no trust in politicians so..........
But yes, overall, go capitalism!


Yes it is Adam Smith. My point here is "the invisible hand" which eventually guides capital to more productive places without top down intervention. A fundamental point that is lost on people who would have rules.
Short selling for example is not to blame, it merely hastens the messages of the market.

DieScum
23rd September 2008, 08:41
Bets post I've ever read on here.

There is going to be lots of hang wringing and backwards looking legislation. The bust will go on causing carnage and then there will be recovery and in the future boom again. And bust and recovery...

Now is the time to keep the cashflow coming and look to invest... not maybe right now this minute... but soon.

Ruprect
23rd September 2008, 08:58
Isn't this more about Gordon trying to control the invisible elbow? Shame he doesn't know his @rse from it :rolleyes: :laugh

M_B
23rd September 2008, 09:58
Nothing fundamental has happened, the markets have regulated themselves as they always do and decided who should go and who should stay. Its a complex and beautiful system that simplistic deterministic cretins don't understand.
So for now all the useless monkeys will gibber that they were right all along yadda yadda blah blah, while the system will sort itself out and carry on much as it's always been.


I admit I am no economic guru, but my understanding is that in regulating itself the market came to the verge of collapse but was prevented from doing so by the state.

Is my understanding wrong (I admit it may be, so this is a genuine question) ? If so then fair enough, if not then should we not investigate how to prevent this happening again so that the taxpayer is not involved in future ?

AlfredJPruffock
23rd September 2008, 11:29
I admit I am no economic guru, but my understanding is that in regulating itself the market came to the verge of collapse but was prevented from doing so by the state.

Is my understanding wrong (I admit it may be, so this is a genuine question) ? If so then fair enough, if not then should we not investigate how to prevent this happening again so that the taxpayer is not involved in future ?

Whether its shoring up reckless Casino Capitalism or War - its allways the taxpayer who takes the hit.

Thats what they pay their taxes for.

Bob Dalek
23rd September 2008, 11:47
Yes it is Adam Smith. My point here is "the invisible hand" which eventually guides capital to more productive places without top down intervention. A fundamental point that is lost on people who would have rules.
Short selling for example is not to blame, it merely hastens the messages of the market.

And tempts f--ks to wreck banks using the (unbelievable, just unbelievable) "The whisper on the street is..." grapevine that underpins the Majestic Trading Floors of Spiv Britain, the Land Fit for Toerags.

DodgyAgent
23rd September 2008, 11:56
Yes it is Adam Smith. My point here is "the invisible hand" which eventually guides capital to more productive places without top down intervention. A fundamental point that is lost on people who would have rules.
Short selling for example is not to blame, it merely hastens the messages of the market.


:yay:

And I always thought that you were no more than a short arsed jerk :wink

DodgyAgent
23rd September 2008, 11:58
Whether its shoring up reckless Casino Capitalism or War - its allways the taxpayer who takes the hit.

Thats what they pay their taxes for.


And it is the capitalist financial systems that create the very wealth that priviliged little knuckleheads like you can pay the tax out of in the first place.

BrilloPad
23rd September 2008, 12:00
I admit I am no economic guru, but my understanding is that in regulating itself the market came to the verge of collapse but was prevented from doing so by the state.

Is my understanding wrong (I admit it may be, so this is a genuine question) ? If so then fair enough, if not then should we not investigate how to prevent this happening again so that the taxpayer is not involved in future ?

My understanding is that SOX caused so much "red tape" regulation that the instruments were moved OBS and made so complex that the regulators could not catch them.

What is needed is less red tape and more asking of "what if".

There is a way round every regulation - and a loophole to every law. What is needed is transparency and common sense.

swamp
23rd September 2008, 12:03
Cost 135k. Selling 160k on delivery. Am I missing something, this looks in the black to me?

Yes it's a rubbish deal.

Better idea would be to go into a Porsche garage and buy a new GT2, with the options you want. And I'm sure the price would be negotiable in the current economic climate...

DodgyAgent
23rd September 2008, 12:09
Whether its shoring up reckless Casino Capitalism or War - its allways the taxpayer who takes the hit.

Thats what they pay their taxes for.

And it is because we live in a free modern society that it is confident enough to confer equal status and opportunities for all. If you bothered to look beyond your very own oversimplified narrow and bigoted mind of yours then you would see that those who wish to destroy these hard one freedoms have no financial services of their own, and who furthermore bandage their women from head to toe in cloth.

AlfredJPruffock
23rd September 2008, 12:28
that those who wish to destroy these hard one freedoms have no financial services of their own, and who furthermore bandage their women from head to toe in cloth.

Now then - dont be beastly to the Glaswegians Dodgy Old Bean - as for this free modern society stuff - such wishy washy liberal talk makes me reach for my pistol.

DodgyAgent
23rd September 2008, 12:43
that those who wish to destroy these hard one freedoms have no financial services of their own, and who furthermore bandage their women from head to toe in cloth.

Now then - dont be beastly to the Glaswegians Dodgy Old Bean - as for this free modern society stuff - such wishy washy liberal talk makes me reach for my pistol.

I suggest then that you stick to poetry and leave the job of running the world to us agents

IR35 Avoider
23rd September 2008, 12:48
In a different forum I came across an explanation of why government can't leave banking entirely to the free market.

The assets of banks are their loans. If all their money came from capital raised from their shareholders, there wouldn't be a problem and government could stay out of things. Unfortunately this would also mean that banks would have less than a tenth as much to lend as they currently do, which would be a huge constraint on the economy.

In real life most of a banks capital comes from deposits. Deposits are short-term and can mostly be withdrawn on demand, and loans are long-term and mostly cannot be cancelled whenever it suits the bank. A bank is therefore like a highly leveraged and fundamentally unstable hedge fund. If there is ever a loss of confidence in the bank, and the short-term depositors start withdrawing their money at a rate higher than the average, the bank won't be able to meet demands, and will fail. Note that the failure is caused by a cashflow problem, the net worth of the bank is not a problem.

Governments can prevent problems arising by giving guarantees so that depositors don't loss confidence. However the price the government pays for preventing a cashflow problem is that it may have to pick up the bill if there is a net worth problem that more than wipes out shareholder capital. Therefore government has to regulate the quantity and quality of lending the bank does, to mitigate its own risks.

My formulation of what I read obviously applies to a highly simplified idea of what a bank does, but I guess analagous arguements will apply to the range of activities of an investment bank.

AtW
23rd September 2008, 12:51
A bank is therefore like a highly leveraged and fundamentally unstable hedge fund.

No no no! High leverage is completely different thing! Short deposits vs same amount put into long loans is a problem, however this is NOT a hedge fund leverage! Hedge funds use leverage so they have 10% of the money or even less - so in effect their liabilities are much greater than their assets, in banks there might be time lag deposits/loans, but with leverage situation is much worse. Sadly some banks started playing like hedge funds - using leverage by getting money not from deposits but from lending market (like Norther Rock), that made them highly unstable as well as buying junk paper that was based on leverage. Govt regulation should have never allowed this to happen.

IR35 Avoider
23rd September 2008, 13:06
The most straight-foward form of leverage is borrowing money to invest. Banks assets are their loans, more than 90% of the money they lend is borrowed from depositors, hence they are more than 10x leveraged. If they lose 10% of their assets in bad loans, they are bankrupt.

ace00
23rd September 2008, 13:09
I suggest then that you stick to poetry and leave the job of running the world to us agents

Wow. What a World that would be. Mind boggles.




<- 2 phones :wink

AtW
23rd September 2008, 13:10
The most straight-foward form of leverage is borrowing money to invest.

Indeed, only leverage would be more or less 1 in this case.


Banks assets are their loans, more than 90% of the money they lend is borrowed from depositors, hence they are more than 10x leveraged.

That's rubbish calculation.

Let's say I am a depositor in your bank and I put £100 into it. You had to reserve £10 and used £90 as 9 x £10 loans. Your leverage is almost non-existant here - if you think of leverage the main feature of it having "long shoulder" (or whatever the team used - did not study physics in this country), the longer the shoulder the more you can lift. In this case leverage is small.

Compare this with short selling when not only you can borrow shares but you need a lot less than 100% of money for this action - if broker demands 20% then your leverage is 5 - you can 5 times more money to operate for your 1 money part (that might be borrowed). Now that's leverage.

Unfortunately some banks became hedge funds and they put money into leveraged stuff, but once they did it they stopped being banks.

KentPhilip
23rd September 2008, 13:14
...all the socialist regulators start coming out of the woodwork. As if top down regulation will provide stability and prosperity. It never has and never will. Luckily capitalists will always find ways round whatever regulations are put up and long may that continue.
Nothing fundamental has happened, the markets have regulated themselves as they always do and decided who should go and who should stay. Its a complex and beautiful system that simplistic deterministic cretins don't understand.
So for now all the useless monkeys will gibber that they were right all along yadda yadda blah blah, while the system will sort itself out and carry on much as it's always been.
The wise will note that history repeats itself and know when to take risks to prosper.:music:

Here Here :yay::yay:

Can I vote for you to be deputy PM alongside Clarkson

AlfredJPruffock
23rd September 2008, 13:18
I suggest then that you stick to poetry and leave the job of running the world to us agents

Aye Da

Jings - now wouldnt that be something - so heres a wee ditty for the Agents who Run the World


I Wanna be a boss
I wanna be a big boss
I wanna boss the world around
I wanna be the biggest boss
that ever bossed the world around
I wanna do it right

Don't wanna be a dancer in the Bolshoi Ballet
Don't want to work for Daddy
In Daddy's shop, 0.K.
I get confused, so confused
I get a pain, I get a pain up here
In the Shirley Temples

I aint quite ready to reveal my campaign
This is not the time
My hero's are alive and well in a cave
I'm keeping them on ice in suspended animation
Till the very right occasion comes along

To our rally come along
Come along to our rally
Come along to our rally come along
To our rally come along
Come along to our rally
Come along to our rally come along

A Brave new world will rise from the agencys
And there upon a rock titanic, I'll cast a giant
Shadow on the face of the deep
And never again will they dare to call me
A freckled, spotty, specky, four eyed
Weedy little creep!



Everyone's going to be free
But they'll have to agree to be free
They'll have to agree to be less free than me
'Cos I rule the world you see

So wait for the army of kiddy-winkies
And terrible tiny tots
In armoured school buses
Firing poison pea-shooters
And sinking their milk teeth into your thighs
Delapsus resurgam! when I fall I shall rise!
Wanna be a boss
I wanna be a big boss
I wanna boss the world around
I wanna be the biggest boss
that ever bossed the world around ....

Incognito
23rd September 2008, 13:29
Let's say I am a depositor in your bank and I put £100 into it. You had to reserve £10 and used £90 as 9 x £10 loans. Your leverage is almost non-existant here - if you think of leverage the main feature of it having "long shoulder" (or whatever the team used - did not study physics in this country), the longer the shoulder the more you can lift. In this case leverage is small.



That's not quite how I understood it. I always found this video (http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=hfXavRTM4Fg) quite good at explaining how the banks used your money.

I don't know how relevant it is to UK banking, but I'm guessing most of the western banking systems are similar.

AtW
23rd September 2008, 13:44
I don't know how relevant it is to UK banking, but I'm guessing most of the western banking systems are similar.

Not all banks use leverage. In this country building societies were more like proper banks - recently "banks" in rush for profit started working with leverages that allowed them to increase profits nicely when market was playing their way, but as soon as it turned they started getting high losses. They thought they were clever and hedged bets by using insurance and securitisation crap but as soon as the market stopped for that they got saddled with lots of junk. Those companies that took part in these games ain't banks even though many called "banks".

Incognito
23rd September 2008, 14:12
Yes but I was more disputing your figures. You said:


Let's say I am a depositor in your bank and I put £100 into it. You had to reserve £10 and used £90 as 9 x £10 loans.

I think it's more if the reserve rate is 9:1 and I deposit £100 then the bank can loan out £900, not £90.

AtW
23rd September 2008, 14:18
I think it's more if the reserve rate is 9:1 and I deposit £100 then the bank can loan out £900, not £90.

Where they will get £900 if they only got £100? That would only happen if someone lends them money at this leverage. Do you think that's what BoE does, lending so much money at such high leverage to all banks? The whole point of reserve part of deposits being required to be set aside is to reduce amount left for lending as dumpener for money being shuffled around - that's why leverage is so bad because it creates something from nothing with huge multipliers.

Credit is evil (unless it's long term capital investment kind) :eyes

Incognito
23rd September 2008, 14:20
Where they will get £900 if they only got £100? That would only happen if someone lends them money at this leverage. Do you think that's what BoE does, lending so much money at such high leverage to all banks? The whole point of reserve part of deposits being required to be set aside is to reduce amount left for lending as dumpener for money being shuffled around - that's why leverage is so bad because it creates something from nothing with huge multipliers.

Credit is evil (unless it's long term capital investment kind) :eyes

Watch that video. It explains it better than I could attempt to.

sasguru
23rd September 2008, 14:30
Where they will get £900 if they only got £100?

You are making a fool of yourself yet again. Banks have ALWAYS lent more money than they have in deposits.
I know you're simple so here's a simple explanation:

http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/banking/bank.htm

AtW
23rd September 2008, 14:34
You are making a fool of yourself yet again. Banks have ALWAYS lent more money than they have in deposits.
I know you're simple so here's a simple explanation:

Those ain't banks - they are ponzi scheme institutions: those can be seen now as they fail utterly, they were never "banks".

Here is the bank that I bank with - I liked them for being conservative:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=LYG&annual

Total assets: 705,737,966
Total liabilities: 681,488,747

No leverage here.

Check any hedge fund (or "bank" that is actually a hedge fund) - you will see high leverages there with a lot more liabilities than assets.

sasguru
23rd September 2008, 14:38
Those ain't banks - they are ponzi scheme institutions: those can be seen now as they fail utterly, they were never "banks".

I know you're a bit slow and thick, so read my lips:

That is the definition of a BANK: an insitution that lends more money than it has.
Has been so since banks first came into existence and will continue to be so.

Atw, you should give it a rest. You are coming across as the mad Rasputin you are and are rapidly becoming the laughing stock on this forum.

AtW
23rd September 2008, 14:43
That is the definition of a BANK: an insitution that lends more money than it has.
Has been so since banks first came into existence and will continue to be so.


Retard, some banks cross the limit and become hedge funds - they lend so much more than they have using such high leverages that they lose their right to be called banks, usually it become obvious when they fail utterly like Lehman Brothers who have got enough derivative liabilities to solve problems of AIDS, hunger in Africa and new alternative energy sources to boot.

People only realise who the real bank is when the big crisis comes around - look around, how many banks are still standing? LTSB is definately a bank - they were conservative (as any bank should be) and it is them who buys gambler H-SOB thingy, I'd prefer they don't but clearly they pay very little and will get support.

Is B&B a bank? No they ain't. They just happened to be called such.

sasguru
23rd September 2008, 14:48
Retard, some banks cross the limit and become hedge funds - they lend so much more than they have using such high leverages that they lose their right to be called banks, usually it become obvious when they fail utterly like Lehman Brothers who have got enough derivative liabilities to solve problems of AIDS, hunger in Africa and new alternative energy sources to boot.

People only realise who the real bank is when the big crisis comes around - look around, how many banks are still standing? LTSB is definately a bank - they were conservative (as any bank should be) and it is them who buys gambler H-SOB thingy, I'd prefer they don't but clearly they pay very little and will get support.

Is B&B a bank? No they ain't. They just happened to be called such.

If everyone with money in LTSB decided to take it out tomorrow, do you think they would be able to honour their obligations?
No because they only have to keep around 10%.

HTH

Incognito
23rd September 2008, 14:48
I know you're a bit slow and thick, so read my lips:

That is the definition of a BANK: an insitution that lends more money than it has.
Has been so since banks first came into existence and will continue to be so.

Atw, you should give it a rest. You are coming across as the mad Rasputin you are and are rapidly becoming the laughing stock on this forum.

Funny that, but I couldn't see your lips move no matter how many times I re-read that.

:D

AtW
23rd September 2008, 14:51
If everyone with money in LTSB decided to take it out tomorrow, do you think they would be able to honour their obligations? No because they only have to keep around 10%.


Any bank would fall if everyone came there because they take in short money and lend long.

However some "banks" started using leverage in order to take in little but lend a LOT more - this increased their risk profile, not only they they can fall (as any other bank) from people coming there to take their money out, but they also exposed themselves to huge losses that can come due to leverage. Nobody notices this while they make huge profits due to leverage, however when the market turns they would usually lose a lot more than they made - that usually kills those "banks".

People don't just come to take their money out all of a sudden - if banks is sound they won't, but if it's some dodgy crap like NR then sure as heck they would.

sasguru
23rd September 2008, 14:53
Any bank would fall if everyone came there because they take in short money and lend long.

However some "banks" started using leverage in order to take in little but lend a LOT more - this increased their risk profile, not only they they can fall (as any other bank) from people coming there to take their money out, but they also exposed themselves to huge losses that can come due to leverage. Nobody notices this while they make huge profits due to leverage, however when the market turns they would usually lose a lot more than they made - that usually kills those "banks".

People don't just come to take their money out all of a sudden - if banks is sound they won't, but if it's some dodgy crap like NR then sure as heck they would.

You get the 10% thing though, right? A couple of posts ago you didn't seem to.
No bank is sound. It's all a confidence trick.

ASB
23rd September 2008, 15:58
If everyone with money in LTSB decided to take it out tomorrow, do you think they would be able to honour their obligations?
No because they only have to keep around 10%.

HTH

Out of interest is the reserve ratio actually as low as 10% of deposits for a retail bank? I thought is was probably higher than that. I realise that it's comprised of differing instruments of course and it could well be that it is as low as 10% in physical hard cash.

Certainly the ratio of debt to total deposit for our retail banks was generally "only" in the 1.5-2:1 ratio according to panorama last night; but I don't know if that includes potential derivative exposure above and beyond the nominal debt value.

Bob Dalek
23rd September 2008, 16:07
How many members are actually on this Forum regularly? Now Zeity's gone, I think it's about 10!

BrilloPad
24th September 2008, 06:31
Out of interest is the reserve ratio actually as low as 10% of deposits for a retail bank? I thought is was probably higher than that. I realise that it's comprised of differing instruments of course and it could well be that it is as low as 10% in physical hard cash.

Certainly the ratio of debt to total deposit for our retail banks was generally "only" in the 1.5-2:1 ratio according to panorama last night; but I don't know if that includes potential derivative exposure above and beyond the nominal debt value.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_requirement

United States at 10% - UK is voluntery but in 1998 was 3.1%.

http://www.feasta.org/documents/moneyecology/box1.htm

"the BoE abolished its minimum reserve ratio in 1981. It now agrees a reserve requirement individually with each bank. This reflects both the level of competition the bank is experiencing from its foreign rivals, and the lending and other risks that it is perceived to be running. This change has weakened the BoE's ability to control the money supply by varying the reserve ratio."

Sounds like something that can be easily manipulated.....

AlfredJPruffock
24th September 2008, 08:09
And it is the capitalist financial systems that create the very wealth that priviliged little knuckleheads like you can pay the tax out of in the first place.


And here was I thinking that it was the workers who created the wealth.

DodgyAgent
24th September 2008, 09:18
And here was I thinking that it was the workers who created the wealth.

They are but a small cog in a large wheel.

Here you are Alf, Janet & John guide to how businesses are created

Entrepreneur gets idea.

Entrepreneur puts business plan together

Entrepreneur raises finance

Entrepreneur finds customer

Entrepreneur builds factory

Entrepreneur employs workers to build goods.

Entrepreneur employs salesmen to sustain and increase business

Entrepreneur makes money and invests in IT

Entrepreneur goes bust because of expense and uselessness of IT

As you can see the workers are very low down the pecking order when it comes to "creating" wealth. Granted they fulfil a more important role than the IT people, but really workers are ten a penny.

sasguru
24th September 2008, 09:32
They are but a small cog in a large wheel.

Here you are Alf, Janet & John guide to how businesses are created

Entrepreneur gets idea.

Entrepreneur puts business plan together

Entrepreneur raises finance

Entrepreneur finds customer

Entrepreneur builds factory in China

Entrepreneur employs Chinese workers to build goods.

Entrepreneur employs salesmen to sustain and increase business

Entrepreneur makes money and invests in IT

In the Long run Entrepreneur goes bust because unemployed chavs in his home market don't have jobs (because all the jobs are in China) and can't buy his product [/B]

.


Note the big flaw in globalisation as shown above.

DodgyAgent
24th September 2008, 09:35
Note the big flaw in globalisation as shown above.


Just a technicality :happy, the objective of having a dig at you guys was still achieved

Board Game Geek
24th September 2008, 09:39
Entrepreneur gets idea.

Entrepreneur puts business plan together

Entrepreneur fails to raise finance, however if he did

Entrepreneur finds customer

Entrepreneur builds factory

Entrepreneur employs English workers to build goods.

Entrepreneur swamped by taxes and red tape

Entrepreneur closes business and goes on the dole

sasguru
24th September 2008, 09:41
Just a technicality :happy, the objective of having a dig at you guys was still achieved

I know :laugh

But fan of capitalism and globalisation as I am, it can still only work in the long run if everyone in the West reduces their standard of living drastically.
The economic problems in the US and UK and Europe are due to most people in those countries paying themselves much more than they are worth and living beyond their means.
The markets are forcing that correction now, I fear.

DodgyAgent
24th September 2008, 09:50
I know :laugh

But fan of capitalism and globalisation as I am, it can still only work in the long run if everyone in the West reduces their standard of living drastically.
The economic problems in the US and UK and Europe are due to most people in those countries paying themselves much more than they are worth and living beyond their means.
The markets are forcing that correction now, I fear.

Which is why markets are to be trusted more than governments.

sasguru
24th September 2008, 10:10
Which is why markets are to be trusted more than governments.

Yes and the markets are saying globalisation is bad for the West.