Question Time

So he uses a public sector worker whos squealing becauae he cant retire at 55 with a half million pension pot as an example of hard done by. Still

So thick that even after question time humiliatoon he csnnot come up with better. Thats pretty incredible

And it beggars belief that anyone could be so stupid as to believe that the best way to get rbs back into tge privste sector at a profit would be to hire second rate staff. In fact they should be paying top whack for the best peoplem
 
top whack doesn't get the best people..its a fallacy..or we wouldn't be in this mess

it makes me laugh when we pay people peanuts in menial jobs..but expect excellence in health and care for the elderly/ mentally sick by paying low wage...but happily throw many thousainds at useless over rated people in the city..who say they are good at "gambling"

funny how the pay related thing only gets applied to the higher job

you are wrong on this one imo Clive
 
EC1 said:
top whack doesn't get the best people..its a fallacy..or we wouldn't be in this mess

it makes me laugh when we pay people peanuts in menial jobs..but expect excellence in health and care for the elderly/ mentally sick by paying low wage...but happily throw many thousainds at useless over rated people in the city..who say they are good at "gambling"

funny how the pay related thing only gets applied to the higher job

you are wrong on this one imo Clive
Click to expand...

thats just rubbish ec. You really haven't got a clue frankly.

You think RBS will be competitive by just putting anyone in charge regardless of track record or results? If it doesn't get competitive and give shareholder value then it won't return to private hands. That is not going to happen with second raters in charge is it? other banks will grab all their business. Is that difficult to understand?

of course pay is related to talent experience and results in loads of jobs. Its not perfect but so what? you think that anyone is capable of running a bank or even a small division of one? What world do you live in?
 
Last edited:
well i'm really glad you said that..so why do we pay people..who actually do really important jobs..minimum wage? looks like pay most for best only applies at the top to me

you see..to me..really important jobs are caring for people who can no longer care for themselves...mending people with broken bodies & minds....caring for sick children...having that ability pisses and sh1ts all over a gambler..with other people's money..it hammers them into the floor. You aren't impressed with that kind of person though are you?..no value there......but you will get all indignant and insulting about some tosser who you have no clue about his skill set..you could be sticking up for knob of the year and you wouldn't know it

we have different priorities you and i...i would love to know what qualification set these "good gamblers" have to be better than the next good gambler..how is that measured on a CV??..how do you know wtf the level of clown was when we had the crash?..did you see their previous track record?..or would you have just been impressed with some turd saying to you..oooh he's good..i don't really know why..ooh but we pay him a lot..so he must be good

you need a reality check Clive

why don't you try applying your..well lets pay the best by the most....formula ...to things that matter in life

i have no problem paying good wonga to quality people...but lets have it across the board.....that gambler who is good at his job..pay him well..but his Granny might need looking after coz she's got dimensia..his Mum might need hospital treatment..his Dad might have a car accident...he can't put those things in order.....gambling don't cover that area.....but he wants/expects them looking after to the same degree he is expected to do at his job..well lets start paying people their value then eh? Lets start valueing people that free up gambler Dans mind of worry..so he can gamble to best of his ability without other worries.

and by the way..when it comes to having a clue about what really matters in life..really matters..i do have a clue
 
Last edited:
Because its market rate ec. Simple as that. It might not be fair but that's the way it is, there are enough people ready to do it at the rate otherwise they would have to pay more.

there have been some shocking people in banking, Goodwin being an example but some such as bob diamond transformed Barclays trading in a extraordinary way and that was a massive earner for the country and shareholders. The banking and regulatory industry (more so the latter I believe) must take responsibility for the crash but the vast majority of people working in many trading and all non trading divisions were entirely blameless as individuals. It's our biggest and best industry.
 
clivex said:
Because its market rate ec. Simple as that. It might not be fair but that's the way it is, there are enough people ready to do it at the rate otherwise they would have to pay more.
Click to expand...

So banking should be about the market should it Clive, and the market should be final, and only arbiter ..... urm ..... ok then (and I'm sure you've worked out what the next question is)

Would you be so good as to inform us how many banks would still be in business today if this market led approach was permitted.

The market you're describing is rather selective can I suggest. As you say, it isn't fair, but that's exactly what Russell Brand is saying too.
 
Yes . It's a boring question now that has been answered many times. Everyone knows the reasons why and tough as it is that is the way it is.

Makes no odds . New banks would have filled the gap and market rate would apply to the jobs. Some new lenders have filled some gaps where certain banks have retrenched.

Would he like to see his firemans wages and gross pension put to market rate? Reapply for their "jobs" and staff it as is genuinely required and not historically required?
 
Warbler

Your defence of Brand as a stick to beat Clive with is getting more transparent by the day.

i know you probably think we are thick here and you are a superior being..one who consults google a lot..but its xmas..give us a break on the false Brand admiration..Icebreaker has fell for it hook line + sinker..or you and him are giggling behind the scenes..i don't really care which..but i do know that you are not a supporter of a knob like Brand in any way shape or form..but you do see it as a way of winding Clive up

i'll bet i'm right..stick to the witty clever stuff..you are good at that...the trolling of Clive is a bit obvious..and to be honest its making your posts pointless to a degree..which is a shame and waste

come on..lets get sensible eh?
 
Last edited:
Where exactly would these banks have come from in the past apocalyptic landscape. Baring in mind that every single western bank would have collapsed on top of each other given the amount of inter lending they'd exposed themselves to. Leaving bugger all?. I'd be interested to see what the new market rate would be now. No where near as high as it is today
 
It's immaterial anyway because there is no way they would all have been allowed to collapse. The central banks would still exist and they would simply fund new banks if that was the case anyway. There was and is always enough asset value across the world to justify banking isn't there?

and someone would have picked uo the loan books for a start. So it's entirely wrong to say nothing would be left. Their lending would be a saleable asset.

Its not worth considering because it was never going to happen
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
give us a break on the false Brand admiration..Icebreaker has fell for it hook line + sinker..or you and him are giggling behind the scenes..
Click to expand...
EC, anything I post on this forum, I mean it/believe in it. I don't have the time to indulge in the tomfoolery you are suggesting.

Re Russell Brand, here's my position. A part of me detests him. I think his baiting of Andrew Sachs was unforgivable, and I am completely at odds with his occasional defence of Islamofascists. But his economic and political views, I find myself concurring with. That is it.
 
fair enough Ice

his economical/political views though aren't original and highly doubtful if genuine imo..he's a fake of the highest order imo. He is making fools of people.
 
EC, long, long ago when I used to play poker, I prided myself on my ability to "read" people. I like to think that I retain a small modicum of that talent.
And the Russell Brand that I saw on Question Time was not indulging in fakery. Quite the opposite, to me a definite sincerity was shining through. The same with his letter of reply to Jo; there is a palpable honesty in his words.
Whether or not one agrees with his views, I do think it is a tad unfair to label him a publicity junkie or a deliberate fraudster.
 
i've no problem with his views..but they aren't really his views..he's just getting down with the crowd to be trendy..also he needs to build up a following after the Ross debacle..he sees playing the working class hero as a way of doing that

i''l bet loads of celebs hold his view..but they don't try and buy the public by expressing them
 
Last edited:
You're well off the mark EC. This is a country that doesn't like dissenting voices and boat rockers. If anything he'll be losing popularity as the media start to turn up the heat on him. If he wanted to increase his popularity he'd do the charity thing (or should I say publicise his charity thing). The idea that he's discredited, or any of us are, if we adopt other people's views is of course fatally flawed as an idea. It shouldn't need explaining. Very, very few people have a genuine original thought by now such has been the temporal evolution of anthroprogenic philosophy. All Brand is doing is fusing together various beliefs that borrow bits and pieces from other forerunner
 
clivex said:
It's immaterial anyway because there is no way they would all have been allowed to collapse. The central banks would still exist and they would simply fund new banks if that was the case anyway. There was and is always enough asset value across the world to justify banking isn't there?

and someone would have picked uo the loan books for a start. So it's entirely wrong to say nothing would be left. Their lending would be a saleable asset.

Its not worth considering because it was never going to happen
Click to expand...

I think it's glib and overly optimistic Clive

With central banks already standing behind depositers to the tune of £85,000 each max, plus other central banks that wouldn't have had the capacity to stand behind their failed banks precipitating a sovereign debt crisis that would also have multiplied I'm tempted to ask just what we'd have plugged the gap with. Would the bank of England have had the reserves to bail out every single non-Chinese bank operating in the UK. OK the Federal reserve and ECB would also have been involved, but it would have pushed us over the cliff I reckon. There's also an issue an extended of issue of not so much what they'd have bailed us out with, but how much that currency would be worth. Same with the loan books, they'd be heavily marked down in the event of selling them. Remember it was Llords buying the HBOS mortgage book that sent them over the edge. These assets weren't marked to market and it's highly questionable what they could have been sold for and to whom. You'd be selling a heavily marked down loan book on a heavily devalued currency, quite possibly to a third party who could have future security implications
 
people who take up a view to enhance their popularity are fakes. yes of course taking the view he has will annoy the media turds..but he's already looked on as a dick by them..so by getting down with the crowd he is trying to tap into mass acceptance...he doesn't care about the crowd he's been running with anymore

its you that is well off the mark..you being duped..but cannot see it
 
Brand's little different to the rich kid who goes to university and discovers poverty, injustice, inequality, and Che Guevara for the first time. They go through about 3 years mock socialism before returning to their spawning grounds and a job in the city. In a few years time another Brand will appear. It was the likes of Billy Bragg before picking up unpopular courses like the NUM.
 
Brand's a lightweight Warbler..a sad charade is being played out..some will buy it..thats just how i see it..neither of us has the correct view without knowing what is really happening in his head..time will tell which of us is right on this..we can chew this one for good..you won't change your view..i won't change my mind..lets see where it goes
 
Warbler said:
I think it's glib and overly optimistic Clive

With central banks already standing behind depositers to the tune of £85,000 each max, plus other central banks that wouldn't have had the capacity to stand behind their failed banks precipitating a sovereign debt crisis that would also have multiplied I'm tempted to ask just what we'd have plugged the gap with. Would the bank of England have had the reserves to bail out every single non-Chinese bank operating in the UK. OK the Federal reserve and ECB would also have been involved, but it would have pushed us over the cliff I reckon. There's also an issue an extended of issue of not so much what they'd have bailed us out with, but how much that currency would be worth. Same with the loan books, they'd be heavily marked down in the event of selling them. Remember it was Llords buying the HBOS mortgage book that sent them over the edge. These assets weren't marked to market and it's highly questionable what they could have been sold for and to whom. You'd be selling a heavily marked down loan book on a heavily devalued currency, quite possibly to a third party who could have future security implications
Click to expand...

you dont understand the nature of the "bail out" and what it required. of course the bofe could have done so.

why should all loan books be marked down? thats rubbish. one example proves absolutely nothing.
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
Brand's a lightweight Warbler..a sad charade is being played out..some will buy it..thats just how i see it..neither of us has the correct view without knowing what is really happening in his head..time will tell which of us is right on this..we can chew this one for good..you won't change your view..i won't change my mind..lets see where it goes
Click to expand...

you are correct. whoever he gets to write his stuff no doubt tries to lend him some weight but hes very quickly exposed as someone who cannot think one step beyond a slogan, which marks him out as being fundamentally thick. thats why he shouldnt be getting the exposure because he has nothing to offer
 
Warbler said:
I think it's glib and overly optimistic Clive

With central banks already standing behind depositers to the tune of £85,000 each max, plus other central banks that wouldn't have had the capacity to stand behind their failed banks precipitating a sovereign debt crisis that would also have multiplied I'm tempted to ask just what we'd have plugged the gap with. Would the bank of England have had the reserves to bail out every single non-Chinese bank operating in the UK. OK the Federal reserve and ECB would also have been involved, but it would have pushed us over the cliff I reckon. There's also an issue an extended of issue of not so much what they'd have bailed us out with, but how much that currency would be worth. Same with the loan books, they'd be heavily marked down in the event of selling them. Remember it was Llords buying the HBOS mortgage book that sent them over the edge. These assets weren't marked to market and it's highly questionable what they could have been sold for and to whom. You'd be selling a heavily marked down loan book on a heavily devalued currency, quite possibly to a third party who could have future security implications
Click to expand...

What is also wrong about this is.

If it simply took "bailing out" of the banks that required it to set things right, what are you talking about when refering to "every non chinese bank"?

and you really think that chinese banks are in a great condition???

and whats the relevance of the guaranteed deposits? it was never going to be required if the "bail out" worked. which it did

it worked to the extent that the government will get its money back with a premium. the stake in lloyds is now down to 20% and will disappear over net couple of years
 
Warbler said:
The week previous on a nasty cold and wet evening he was supporting some tenants of a housing development who were presenting a petition to Downing Street. The story is that these people were being evicted from their supposedly secure tenancies because the property management had been transfered to an American private equity firm who wanted to evict them, and concentrate on luxury apartments for rich people.

Brand responded (nice to know he reads his correspondance himself) and even though he didn't need to, he felt suitably moved to lend his support and in doing so knew they'd get a higher media profile.
Click to expand...

And it worked !!!
Great news this evening that the American firm has relented (caved in) and allowed the 93 families to retain their tenancies in the New Era complex at their current rate of rent rather than the intended 400% rental increase which was planned.
Give Brand his due in this regard at least; I'm sure the tenants of New Era most certainly do.
 
Difficult to argue otherwise I'd say Ice (although I look forward to any responses). Hope the journo who tried to belittle Russell Brands efforts acknowledges it (I doubt it though).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top