Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[cem_devecioglu]

question: how do the bankers earn money ?

I don`t think they do actually 'earn' money; it`s mostly gambling (with other people`s money) and usury.

Of course they do, Debs. Without venture capital provided by banks, many small businesses would fail to start, fail to operate and fail to grow, in may cases, into export-earning enterprises. Plus the fact that the City earns a vast amount of foreign income through the provision of financial services to other countries.

Of course there are bad apples in every cart, and these should be rooted out. IMHO, the important thing for banks to do now is to show that they can use their profitability for the benefot of the wider community, taking a leaf perhaps from the Gurney Quakers. 

wrong.. the same can be done with a bank thats owned by public   no need to be private!
 
foreign credits also means a foreign robbery

1. There speaks someone who doesn't understand the benefits of competition.

2. Foreign credits? If a country wants to do business with another country and the City of London facilitates it, how can that be robbery? 

1. why is necessary comptetition ? because its necessary to drop the price of labour..
 
tell me why community has to pay extra if it can be done without paying..
 
 
2..in a credit bussiness , there are 2 sides.. a looser and a winner..

1.a. Nothing to do with labour at all. b.Competition provides the consumer (and that includes your beloved workers) with the best value and the widest choice of product. c.Perhaps that explains why the former East Germany offered....the government Trabant, whilst the filthy capitalist West offered a wide range from the Ford Fiesta to the Aston Martin. 

2. Why are you going on about credit? The City of London provides a financial market place where foreign companies/countries can choose from a wide range of services on offer which can enable them  to do their business with others. 

...and you still a haven't provided me with your definition of capitalism.   

 
1.a nothing to do with labour ? how ?  we are not living in Alices Wonderland..  the masters always prefers cheapest labour.. Then why do you think East Europeans, Indians start to work in UK jobs with cheap salaries.. if you really want competition, believe me more than half of UK citizens can loose their jobs on their own land.. Are you sure ?
 
1.b. whatever approach/precaution you have, sellers always scr*w buyers.. thats a rule..   (except Robg and Albs )
 
1.c. Trabant ? thats a cheapo car build for masses for the purpose of going from point a to b..  and it does that     and if socialist countries want to build a good car they can.. but prefer to spend their money for other things.. and remember , they dont have resources like abusing other countries
 
and now, you compare countries which have long years of abuse on others  and countries that only work ,produce and consume.. do you really think this comparison fair 
 
2. dont get me started again on this credit/services bussiness.. I outlined the main principle yesterday..
 
and yes I havent provided my definition about capitalism .. you dont need as you/I already live in it..
and you didnt answer my questions also 
 

[Nickbat]

It is absolutely pointless carrying on this debate, Cem. To me you live (or, rather, want to live) in world which is completely alien to me. 

[cem_devecioglu]

The biggest problem in banking is that there are too few banks and too little competition and they therefore have too big a grip on a countries / societies well being, charge too much and provide too little with poor service (like all monopolies) they are too big to fail, so they have lost the moral hazard that if you run a business badly then the investors either have too bail it out, it is taken over by another business or it goes bust.

The banking crisis is to a large extent a failure of regulation and political meddling. The US sub-prime crisis was caused by Clinton making the banks provide mortgages to poor people with no collateral. This was then made worse by the bankers in many cases committing fraud, by putting the mortgages into packages and selling them to other financial institutions at their own false valuations. How many banks / bankers in the US have been prosecuted for this, NONE, as there is no political will to enforce the law. Why, because when a group of politicians and bankers get together they all have brown noses.

This is good read on bank reform with some very good points, like investment banks should be partnerships, so the moral hazard starts and end with the people running them. If they make money you get a bonus, if they don't then it is cheque book out time. 

http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/wp/shaun-richards/a-plan-for-reforming-the-uk-economy-start-with-the-banks-right-now/

Unfortunately, banks are a vital part of modern society, their excesses aren't acceptable and they should be heavily regulated to prevent them. Many of the services they do provide are necessary for an economy too function, this includes the Futures Market, which I often see people saying they should be banned. If anybody wants an explanation on how they work and why they are vital for many industries then I'm happy to provide this.

Cem - Nobody would pick capitalism or democracy as a system, until they look at the alternatives - Winston Churchill.
 
All command driven economies have failed and will always fail.
 
thats a bit tall prediction.. and dont forget also in capitalism there are masters who commands
 
 
Capitalism works on a bottom up approach
 
do you really believe that ?  do you know that very few people take the  world leading decisions ?
 
 
created by demand for products and services
 
or the demand is artificially created by ads and they sell us crap that we dont need
 
and anybody / everybody is free to join in by running their own business.
 
even the youngest member on OOF without any economical background can predict that its not true   may be you can sell flowers!..
 
 
 Command economies, socialism / communism rely on a top down approach where committees have to be all seeing in deciding on investment and production targets,
 
yes its a planned and controlled economy model where sharks  cant do what they wish
 
 
 
which they can't foresee so get it wrong,
 
they can foresee, but do they care is a question of humanity,education and moral values
 
and as it is a closed system you are either a worker on a fixed wage or on a committee (with privileges)  by being a member of the political ruling party.
 
socialist/communist system not necessarily be like that.. although an example application shows that..
 
but without knowing the conditions/facts in situ , making strict conclusions are far from the exact truth..
 


Nationalised industries don't work as they are run at the will (and whim) of politicians and are monopolies,
 
 
nationalised industries worked very good in my country in the past (from 1923 and after till 1990 ) until
some politicians catch and follow the tail of capitalism.. and wreck everything.. and I witnessed every moment with my eyes..   
 
 
 
not on commercial grounds. Most countries have Monopoly Commissions to a stop company or a small number of companies taking over or wiping out all competition, so they become monopolies. But if a Government runs something, then it is considered good to be a monopoly NHS, Education, provision of local services etc. Can somebody please explain this?

comments above..
 
 besides what took my attention, commenters here generally forget the history that western world tried their very best to strangle all new socialist/communist republics.. and these countries survived under very harsh conditions.. even my country, is not like them more like a mixture economy it also shared the same destiny.. whoever claims different, please check in history books.. 

[cem_devecioglu]

It is absolutely pointless carrying on this debate, Cem. To me you live (or, rather, want to live) in world which is completely alien to me. 

as you wish Nickbat

[Dishevelled Den]

But if a Government runs something, then it is considered good to be a monopoly NHS, Education, provision of local services etc. Can somebody please explain this?

I suppose if that government were to be sufficiently in control of events, had a mandate based on a declared manifesto, had strategic awareness, strength of will and had the expertise to govern effectively, then any critical infrastructure and concerns run by that government should be being done so for the benefit of the nation and its peoples rather than a management structure and shareholders.

Of course the word 'if' in this context assumes proportions far in excess of those normally associated with such an innocent word.

[cem_devecioglu]

But if a Government runs something, then it is considered good to be a monopoly NHS, Education, provision of local services etc. Can somebody please explain this?

I suppose if that government were to be sufficiently in control of events, had a mandate based on a declared manifesto, had strategic awareness, strength of will and had the expertise to govern effectively, then any critical infrastructure and concerns run by that government should be being done so for the benefit of the nation and its peoples rather than a management structure and shareholders.

Of course the word 'if' in this context assumes proportions far in excess of those normally associated with such an innocent word.

only you could build such a structured , planned sentence.. top points to you
 
and I ignore second sentence

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

But if a Government runs something, then it is considered good to be a monopoly NHS, Education, provision of local services etc. Can somebody please explain this?

I suppose if that government were to be sufficiently in control of events, had a mandate based on a declared manifesto, had strategic awareness, strength of will and had the expertise to govern effectively, then any critical infrastructure and concerns run by that government should be being done so for the benefit of the nation and its peoples rather than a management structure and shareholders.

Of course the word 'if' in this context assumes proportions far in excess of those normally associated with such an innocent word.

only you could build such a structured , planned sentence.. top points to you
 
and I ignore second sentence

Let's not forget Ms Debs, Cem.......

[cem_devecioglu]

But if a Government runs something, then it is considered good to be a monopoly NHS, Education, provision of local services etc. Can somebody please explain this?

I suppose if that government were to be sufficiently in control of events, had a mandate based on a declared manifesto, had strategic awareness, strength of will and had the expertise to govern effectively, then any critical infrastructure and concerns run by that government should be being done so for the benefit of the nation and its peoples rather than a management structure and shareholders.

Of course the word 'if' in this context assumes proportions far in excess of those normally associated with such an innocent word.

only you could build such a structured , planned sentence.. top points to you
 
and I ignore second sentence

Let's not forget Ms Debs, Cem.......

 
yep..