On Sun 5 Apr at 12:03pm dave wrote:
It’s great to see that the wonderful human being that is Jacob Rees Mogg will be making a killing out of all this. Lovely to know all our hardship isn’t going to waste.
I wonder if Mick Symes will allow that news on his Facebook group
On Sun 5 Apr at 1:23pm Sleeveless wrote:
No such thing as a “dead cert”. Like any investment it is a gamble. I would hope that many other Investment Firms are doing the same and looking for recovery stocks - many pension funds depend on it!
On Sun 5 Apr at 3:31pm Local99 wrote:
How dare anyone not suffer in every way possible!
On Sun 5 Apr at 3:53pm endoftheouse wrote:
Being the end of the tax year I've just checked on my pension pot investments. Currently their down by 11.25% on last year's end of tax year value but not worried as I'm not planning on using my money pots for now as there's still a load of money to be earned if you want too.
On Sun 5 Apr at 5:51pm Tom Pain wrote:
It doesn't look like there's much hope on either side of the political spectrum . It seems that while Starmer was in charge of the CPS they rejected police efforts to prosecute Savile~ not enough evidence. Hmm
On Sun 5 Apr at 7:36pm Hamid Barr wrote:
Rees-Mogg no longer owns the company trying to make this "killing". He resigned from it's board of directors some while back. His shareholding is 15%. It's highly probable that he knew nothing about this plan.
But then, like the pointy nosed Daily Mirror editor on Marr this morning let's not waste a chance to put some blame on an evil Tory without resorting to that underhand tactic of evidence.
Next from Dave - Corona Virus was caused by Boris Johnston
On Sun 5 Apr at 10:52pm Basil wrote:
I'm always surprised about people complaining about the logic of capitalism. Look, the purpose of capitalism is to make profits, not satisfy human need. That is why there are homeless people while most of us have a smartphone. If you don't like it, become a socialist - production tomeet human need, not to make profit. And before some moron says 'But you don't make a profit unless you satisfy need'... Why are there homeless people?
On Mon 6 Apr at 8:53am Nevillman wrote:
Good analysis of capitalism basil. The baker makes the best bread they can because that leads to the most sales and most profit. Hopefully they also get an intrinsic pride in their bread as well but that is not necessary for capitalism. It isn't moronic to say that you don't make a profit unless you meet a need. It's a good point. I'm increasingly realising there are homeless people for a large number of reasons. If there was only one reason related to something homeless people need and it was profitable to meet their need then a business would exist to meet it. On a simple level, if you say that homeless people only need a home then I'm afraid it is unlikely capitalism will meet their need as they can't afford to pay.
In theory by moving money around, people in finance like mogg, are making capitalism more efficient as capital moves to where it will be best used. I very much doubt that the service they provide warrants the excessive profits they make and I'm not completely sure how they get away with it. Their greed allows them to concoct all sorts of justifications for it and politicians have to let them get away with it. I'm sure that arguments like if we tax or regulate them too hard they will go abroad are hard to counter.
I'm afraid that greed which is a human characteristic, means that socialism, producing for need and not profit is doomed to failure. There are too many tragic case studies to think other.
On Mon 6 Apr at 11:06am Stephen Watson wrote:
Nevillman, when you say "In theory ... capital moves to where it will be best used" - no. There is no such economic 'theory' in the sense of say, quantum theory or the theory of evolution. What there is, is a set of assertions that are based on clearly invalid assumptions - such as, that all humans are perfectly rational and all knowing, that there are no such things as externalised costs, and that there is no value other than economic price (so for example, the air you breathe is without any value to you). Since these assumptions are obviously completely cookie, there is no valid theory based on them. The entire structure of new-liberal economics (on which all th eecnomic policy since the 190s has been based) is essentially a propaganda cult.
On Mon 6 Apr at 11:07am Stephen Watson wrote:
Sorry, I meant to type 1980s. Must always check before hitting the red button.
On Mon 6 Apr at 12:31pm Nevillman wrote:
Agree up to a point Stephen. Most consumers are probably not particularly rational and make emotive decisions which they attempt to rationalize afterwards. I suspect that financiers are more rational than most in that at least they move capital to where it is likely to make most profit whether that profit is justified on rational grounds of not. They are likely to have analysed where the profit is best and move capital there. Whether this is best for society or just them is debatable. Probably sometimes.
Basil struggles with the difference between capitalism which I reluctantly accept as the best way of distributing resources in society and neo liberalism which you are right is a propaganda cult designed to justify the excesses of capitalism and the greed of some. Sadly with the referendum result and the rise of trump neo liberalism is certainly winning. I don't know enough about China to say whether it's economic policies are further evidence of this but I suspect it is.
On Mon 6 Apr at 12:39pm Tom Pain wrote:
According to Prof. Richard Werner of Southampton University, economists are not taught how and by whom money is created. Thus all their theories miss out the most important factor. 97% of the "money" in the economy is created as interest bearing debt by private corporations. This is demonstratively true and he has proved it. You don't need to understand "economics" and all it's labyrinthine theories to see how the system is weighted in favour of a certain section of the community which is magically getting more wealthy as the rest is getting poorer in an ever increasing web of debt. You don't need to blame political parties or individuals~ it's the system. As long as it's there people will play it to their own advantage; their own survival instincts dictate it.
On Tue 7 Apr at 9:28am Nevillman wrote:
I'm not completely sure of the relevance of this information tom. The study of the money supply is of interest to some but as Thatcher discovered with her 'monetarist' policies not easy to regulate. It's not actually true to say that the rest of us get poorer. Most of us are probably wealthier in terms of purchasing power than ever. We are certainly wealthier than the vast majority of the world's population.
I don't like being accused of misrepresenting your views ton, so please explain exactly what you were trying to say and its relevance to the preceding discussion if I have got you wrong. I have even taken the trouble of reading what prof Werner said to avoid upsetting you again.
Why do you say that economic theories are 'labyrinthine'?
On Tue 7 Apr at 1:40pm Tom Pain wrote:
My understanding of labyrinthine is~ long, involved, torturously twisting, designed to confuse you into getting lost. I'm not playing ego games of I'm right, you're wrong, I'm clever , you're not or any of that stuff. If you're interested Richard Werner the free lunch is the place to start. 3 videos that explain money creation for non economic geniuses. Basically it's not what people think it is. Thatcher DEREGULATED with the results we have seen,a short term recovery ending in the 2008 crisis. But getting into all that detail is a distraction which the economic geniuses can manipulate with their mastery of the subject which is their domain. You don't go into the lions cage if you want to overcome him. Once you understand money creation a lot of things become clear. Was it Plato who said~"In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king". Then think of Gordon Brown selling off our gold when it was at it's lowest price, going to work for the World Bank and now saying only a world government can save us from the epidemic. W.H.O.do you think he's working for?