Cameron vetoes EU Treaty change

[SWP's back]

Straight away I can see the figures are for all finicancial services in the UK not the City of London.

Must try harder Attila. C-.

But you (presumably) acknowledge that the tax take from the City has diminished considerably and therefore public spending must be cut.

It's over because of their greed. I accept their should be cuts but do you accept some of the banksters should be doing time?

-- Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:44 pm --

You mean pensions, loans, insurance, credit cards & mortgages?

Yes I can.

No you can't. The treaty would have affected our FS industry, not just the City. It was about more than just the Tobin Tax.

Bullshit and you know it.

No. I don't.

You admitted you are wrong to GDM yet?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

It's over because of their greed. I accept their should be cuts but do you accept some of the banksters should be doing time?

Absolutely I do. To my mind there is no doubt that some senior people in the city knew what was going on and continued irregardless. That behaviour can only be described as fraudulent.

I think it reflects very badly on us as a nation that there appear to have been no arrests as a direct consequence of some of the stuff that was going on. Say what you will about the USA, but they do not fuck about when it comes to white collar crime and if we applied their policies over here, there would have been a number of prosecutions quite possibly at senior board level at some of the big banks.

It is not, however, over because of their greed, or at least that is far from the overall picture. The revenue that the goverment was previously generating was, to no insignificant extent, garnered from profits in banks and a property boom that could not be sustained for reasons which I am sure you are aware. On that basis it is only right that ongoing levels of public spending reflect the genuine and sustainable income that the government can generate, which was not the case before the credit crunch.

I have made this point several times on here and I am yet to receive an adequate and worthwhile response. Levels of of public spending for a decade were based on an illusion - why do people insist on pretending that the mirage is still there. It's not there and it never was. That is why public spending has to be substantially (and I'm afraid to say brutally) decreased and no amount of saying 'it wasn't our fault' is going to change that fact

 

[twinkletoes]

It's over because of their greed. I accept their should be cuts but do you accept some of the banksters should be doing time?

Absolutely I do. To my mind there is no doubt that some senior people in the city knew what was going on and continued irregardless. That behaviour can only be described as fraudulent.

I think it reflects very badly on us as a nation that there appear to have been no arrests as a direct consequence of some of the stuff that was going on. Say what you will about the USA, but they do not fuck about when it comes to white collar crime and if we applied their policies over here, there would have been a number of prosecutions quite possibly at senior board level at some of the big banks.

It is not, however, over because of their greed, or at least that is far from the overall picture. The revenue that the goverment was previously generating was, to no insignificant extent, garnered from profits in banks and a property boom that could not be sustained for reasons which I am sure you are aware. On that basis it is only right that ongoing levels of public spending reflect the genuine and sustainable income that the government can generate, which was not the case before the credit crunch.

I have made this point several times on here and I am yet to receive an adequate and worthwhile response. Levels of of public spending for a decade were based on an illusion - why do people insist on pretending that the mirage is still there. It's not there and it never was. That is why public spending has to be substantially (and I'm afraid to say brutally) decreased and no amount of saying 'it wasn't our fault' is going to change that fact

Joseph Stiglitz, professor of economics at Columbia University and a Nobel laureate doesnt agree with you.

He says you should spend to get out of a slump.

He also predicted the global financial meltdown.

 

[SWP's back]

It's over because of their greed. I accept their should be cuts but do you accept some of the banksters should be doing time?

Absolutely I do. To my mind there is no doubt that some senior people in the city knew what was going on and continued irregardless. That behaviour can only be described as fraudulent.

I think it reflects very badly on us as a nation that there appear to have been no arrests as a direct consequence of some of the stuff that was going on. Say what you will about the USA, but they do not fuck about when it comes to white collar crime and if we applied their policies over here, there would have been a number of prosecutions quite possibly at senior board level at some of the big banks.

It is not, however, over because of their greed, or at least that is far from the overall picture. The revenue that the goverment was previously generating was, to no insignificant extent, garnered from profits in banks and a property boom that could not be sustained for reasons which I am sure you are aware. On that basis it is only right that ongoing levels of public spending reflect the genuine and sustainable income that the government can generate, which was not the case before the credit crunch.

I have made this point several times on here and I am yet to receive an adequate and worthwhile response. Levels of of public spending for a decade were based on an illusion - why do people insist on pretending that the mirage is still there. It's not there and it never was. That is why public spending has to be substantially (and I'm afraid to say brutally) decreased and no amount of saying 'it wasn't our fault' is going to change that fact

Joseph Stiglitz, professor of economics at Columbia University and a Nobel laureate doesnt agree with you.

He says you should spend to get out of a slump.

He also predicted the global financial meltdown.

If we kept pulling names out of a hat, one at a time, to back up our stance, then this thread could top 100 posts.

 

[twinkletoes]

Absolutely I do. To my mind there is no doubt that some senior people in the city knew what was going on and continued irregardless. That behaviour can only be described as fraudulent.

I think it reflects very badly on us as a nation that there appear to have been no arrests as a direct consequence of some of the stuff that was going on. Say what you will about the USA, but they do not fuck about when it comes to white collar crime and if we applied their policies over here, there would have been a number of prosecutions quite possibly at senior board level at some of the big banks.

It is not, however, over because of their greed, or at least that is far from the overall picture. The revenue that the goverment was previously generating was, to no insignificant extent, garnered from profits in banks and a property boom that could not be sustained for reasons which I am sure you are aware. On that basis it is only right that ongoing levels of public spending reflect the genuine and sustainable income that the government can generate, which was not the case before the credit crunch.

I have made this point several times on here and I am yet to receive an adequate and worthwhile response. Levels of of public spending for a decade were based on an illusion - why do people insist on pretending that the mirage is still there. It's not there and it never was. That is why public spending has to be substantially (and I'm afraid to say brutally) decreased and no amount of saying 'it wasn't our fault' is going to change that fact

Joseph Stiglitz, professor of economics at Columbia University and a Nobel laureate doesnt agree with you.

He says you should spend to get out of a slump.

He also predicted the global financial meltdown.

If we kept pulling names out of a hat, one at a time, to back up our stance, then this thread could top 100 posts.

If he takes the time to read what Stiglitz has to say then he will see an adequate and worthwhile alternative to austerity.

We have some of the lowest borrowing rates in the world so why not take advantage of it and spend on major infrastructure projects which will make us a more productive economy and aid growth.

Superfast broadband.

European energy supergrid.

Integrated transport system.

National water grid.

 

[Bojinov The Bull]

The funny thing about this whole 'debate' is that NOBODY would have agreed to this treaty change, Labour, Lib Dem, Conservative, nobody! Had Cameron signed upto it he'd currently be in the middle of one hell of a shitstorm, he doesnt sign upto it and guess what its pretty much the same thing!

Thats the problem with politics in this country and especially Labour at the moment under Mr Ed, they are just more bothered about disagreeing with EVERYTHING that the coalition do rather than actually setting out policies and sticking to their own guns, i'm embarrassed for them and the quicker they get rid of that joker the better they'll do.

Cameron has shown leadership, decisiveness and has put Clegg in his place at last, im very happy with how things have turned out.

 

[smudgedj]

Joseph Stiglitz, professor of economics at Columbia University and a Nobel laureate doesnt agree with you.

He says you should spend to get out of a slump.

He also predicted the global financial meltdown.

Means nothing

Put 10 different economists in a room and you'll get 11 different opinions.

 

[SWP's back]

Joseph Stiglitz, professor of economics at Columbia University and a Nobel laureate doesnt agree with you.

He says you should spend to get out of a slump.

He also predicted the global financial meltdown.

Means nothing

Put 10 different economists in a room and you'll get 11 different opinions.

I'd imagine the figure would be even higher.

 

[PJMCC1UK]

It's over because of their greed. I accept their should be cuts but do you accept some of the banksters should be doing time?

Absolutely I do. To my mind there is no doubt that some senior people in the city knew what was going on and continued irregardless. That behaviour can only be described as fraudulent.

I think it reflects very badly on us as a nation that there appear to have been no arrests as a direct consequence of some of the stuff that was going on. Say what you will about the USA, but they do not fuck about when it comes to white collar crime and if we applied their policies over here, there would have been a number of prosecutions quite possibly at senior board level at some of the big banks.

It is not, however, over because of their greed, or at least that is far from the overall picture. The revenue that the goverment was previously generating was, to no insignificant extent, garnered from profits in banks and a property boom that could not be sustained for reasons which I am sure you are aware. On that basis it is only right that ongoing levels of public spending reflect the genuine and sustainable income that the government can generate, which was not the case before the credit crunch.

I have made this point several times on here and I am yet to receive an adequate and worthwhile response. Levels of of public spending for a decade were based on an illusion - why do people insist on pretending that the mirage is still there. It's not there and it never was. That is why public spending has to be substantially (and I'm afraid to say brutally) decreased and no amount of saying 'it wasn't our fault' is going to change that fact

Joseph Stiglitz, professor of economics at Columbia University and a Nobel laureate doesnt agree with you.

He says you should spend to get out of a slump.

He also predicted the global financial meltdown.

Wasn't it Keynes who said spend to boost the economy when in a slump. But he also said to save when things are going good to pay for it. Unfortunately the last government didn't heed that advice so we can't spend our way out of it.
If you take Stiglitz's advice then we just end up with more debt and even when times are good we'll have to borrow instead of living off our own means.

 

[twinkletoes]

Joseph Stiglitz, professor of economics at Columbia University and a Nobel laureate doesnt agree with you.

He says you should spend to get out of a slump.

He also predicted the global financial meltdown.

Means nothing

Put 10 different economists in a room and you'll get 11 different opinions.

I'd imagine the figure would be even higher.

Find me two that predicted the financial meltdown.

You won't find many because they all believed the hype.<br /><br />-- Tue Dec 13, 2011 2:11 pm --<br /><br />

Absolutely I do. To my mind there is no doubt that some senior people in the city knew what was going on and continued irregardless. That behaviour can only be described as fraudulent.

I think it reflects very badly on us as a nation that there appear to have been no arrests as a direct consequence of some of the stuff that was going on. Say what you will about the USA, but they do not fuck about when it comes to white collar crime and if we applied their policies over here, there would have been a number of prosecutions quite possibly at senior board level at some of the big banks.

It is not, however, over because of their greed, or at least that is far from the overall picture. The revenue that the goverment was previously generating was, to no insignificant extent, garnered from profits in banks and a property boom that could not be sustained for reasons which I am sure you are aware. On that basis it is only right that ongoing levels of public spending reflect the genuine and sustainable income that the government can generate, which was not the case before the credit crunch.

I have made this point several times on here and I am yet to receive an adequate and worthwhile response. Levels of of public spending for a decade were based on an illusion - why do people insist on pretending that the mirage is still there. It's not there and it never was. That is why public spending has to be substantially (and I'm afraid to say brutally) decreased and no amount of saying 'it wasn't our fault' is going to change that fact

Joseph Stiglitz, professor of economics at Columbia University and a Nobel laureate doesnt agree with you.

He says you should spend to get out of a slump.

He also predicted the global financial meltdown.

Wasn't it Keynes who said spend to boost the economy when in a slump. But he also said to save when things are going good to pay for it. Unfortunately the last government didn't heed that advice so we can't spend our way out of it.
If you take Stiglitz's advice then we just end up with more debt and even when times are good we'll have to borrow instead of living off our own means.

Do nothing and have 10 years of stagnation.