Answer: they're both outdated tools that ought to be bannished to history.
Royal Mail... British Airways... they all think that it is a good idea to stirke. I can only presume that their Union leaders are getting thick brown envolopes from UK mail, TNT and Virgin Airways because anyone who has two brain cells even vaguely in communication will be able to decern that such action will merely speed up the demise/privatisation of their companies.
Lets take the Royal Mail as most of the arguments here apply to both:
You're going to stirke... during the most busy time of the year (run up to Christmas). We know for certain that the Royal Mail isn't going to be making money hand over fist. If it was the the government wouldn't really care about modernising the company. They wouldn't be trying to make the RM take on different terms if they were already massively successful, the reason why they are looking to change the system is because it is not efficient and isn't making much money.
According to their own reports
(ftp://ftp.royalmail.com/Downloads/public/ctf/rmg 200809RM_Group_Accounts_May_2009.pdf)
The Royal mail lost £229,000,000 after tax. Nice.
Obviously this is how the mind of Mr RM Union leader is working:
Our company is loosing a lot of money.
They are now trying to modernise the company
This could lead to jobs losses!
There is only on thing to do stirke.
The workers come first!
The thing is Mr Union leader is labouring under a misapprehension. It appears he still thinks it is the 1970's.
In the 1970's the UK was unsure of what was best Communism or Free Market. We didn't know whether is was best to prop up inefficient companies with goverment money in order to ensure people keep their jobs or whether it was best to let the dying die and put the money to good use in new up coming industries that actually had a hope of turning a profit this side of eternity.
That was then, this is now. The Soviet Union has collapsed, the largest political land mass and all it had to show for it was a few potatoes and a few bags of cement. The country was so hideously ineffient it make 'its a knock out' look like a programme on transport efficiency. China, now one of the worlds largest economies has a backbone of Communism but still really blends in the benefits of free market capatalism. The 70's are over and so is the discussion. The most effective thing to do with companies that can't turn a profit is to modernise them so the can or if that proves impossible take the 'old horse' to the vet and have them put down.
Refusing to modernise when you are getting sub'ed by the government is now little more than saying "I could make the system work but screw it I'm getting a free ride off the tax payer so why bother". It is just not an acceptable scenario anymore and no one will put up with it. The governement know that, the public know that but for some reason the Unions don't. I guess they never got that memo.
I think the character of the RM Unions can be seen best in an interview between Andrew Marr and the CWU general secretary Billy Hayes. Apart from the fact he got every name wrong in the interview, even that of Andrew Marr himself, Mr Hayes made one point that demonstrates a bit of a lack of understanding:
"This is about a culture of management who seem to think in a democracy the workforce just have to do what they're told."
Democracy... work force? There seems to be some confusion Mr Hayes about where democracy applies and where it doens't. We get to choose our leaders in a democracy because being subject to the law of the UK is not optional. You are born here, you live here and therefore you are subject to the law. You cannot declare your house to be a new country and subject to your own laws.
Conversely when you work for an employer you do not choose who leads the company, neither do you tell management what to do, the reason is because if you don't like it, you can get up and quit and join a different company or even set up your own. However as long as you draw a wage, generally you are required to do what management tells you (don't get me wrong every now and again you have to tell them to 'take a long walk off a short pier' but generally if the request is reasonable then you are to do it.
All BA and the Royal Mail will do is cause customers to go else where, which means profit will drop further and will speed up the death of their current situation. To make an analogy these days striking is a fire extinguisher, one that just so happens to be filled with petrol.
Thursday, 22 October 2009
Wednesday, 21 October 2009
The BNP on BBC question time, next stop savagery and barbarism
Just to boot, in case you haven't grasped how this works yet, my title is sarcastic. I do not think that because the BNP is on question time the world will descend into anarchy.
For some reason people seem convinced that because the BNP are going to be on question time this means that the end of the world in nigh and that we are all soon to be plunged into a neo-Nazi nightmare.
People seem to be missing something however, being put on question time is not being elected, one would precipitate a disaster and the other means practically nothing.
For some reason people think that if you give the BNP the 'legitimacy' of being on a BBC program then everyone in the UK will sit there and think... 'you know what, their obviously not bad guys if the Beeb will have them on their program, I think I'll stop voting labour like I have the last 30 years and start voting for them'.
My goodness people if getting votes was that easy we'd have a new government every five minutes.
There is a fundamental reason why the BNP will never get in... it is not a secret but maybe it will come as a surprise nonetheless;
...the UK will never have a BNP parliament because we're not racist!
The majority of people in the UK are so anti racist it is astounding, I sometimes forget this and then end up choking on my food when I hear someone from another Western European country saying something that, here in the UK, would totally unacceptable. We forget that we are very likely the least racist country in world. As a result there is more likely hood of Katie Price becoming a Nobel Physics prize winner than there being any strong BNP contingent in the UK.
The only way they would ever make head way is if around 50% of the country was racist, and if that was the case the problem would not be that the BNP is in power but that 50% of or country had turned racist over night.
'Ah' you say, 'but it is not the fact their are racist, it is the fact that the BNP can go on the Television and convince people they are actually nice people and not racist and then get votes that way, misleading the public into electing them'.
That could be very true under different circumstances, but lets think about this, which program are they going on? The Jeremy Kyle show? Trisha? No, they are going on question time, what sort of naive retards do you think are going to be watching?
Do you think that will a little demagoguery Nick Griffin is going to have the intellectual class eating out of his hand? If this is the case we better ban him from YouTube too!
At the end of the day sure, if he was going to talk to teenagers in run down areas, if he was talking to those who watch and enjoy Jeremy Kyle, if he was going to talk to those who are borderline mentally handicapped then I would be concerned, but question time? If you think his mind control powers are that good you have been watching a little too much Star Wars.
Oh and just a reminder, the reason why their people got any votes in Europe in the first place is because discussion of immigration (nothing to do with race) was repressed and as a result no one would address or consider what was on the minds of a reasonable amount of people in the UK. These people (rightly or wrongly) then voted for the only people they saw discussing the issue. In short repressing discussion doesn't really help anyone.
When Question time does air, I will not be fretting in my boots. Oh contraire, I will be relaxing in my chair pleased in the knowledge that thanks to freedom of speech these people and their policies are going to be exposed on television for everyone to see in the way nature intended.
For some reason people seem convinced that because the BNP are going to be on question time this means that the end of the world in nigh and that we are all soon to be plunged into a neo-Nazi nightmare.
People seem to be missing something however, being put on question time is not being elected, one would precipitate a disaster and the other means practically nothing.
For some reason people think that if you give the BNP the 'legitimacy' of being on a BBC program then everyone in the UK will sit there and think... 'you know what, their obviously not bad guys if the Beeb will have them on their program, I think I'll stop voting labour like I have the last 30 years and start voting for them'.
My goodness people if getting votes was that easy we'd have a new government every five minutes.
There is a fundamental reason why the BNP will never get in... it is not a secret but maybe it will come as a surprise nonetheless;
...the UK will never have a BNP parliament because we're not racist!
The majority of people in the UK are so anti racist it is astounding, I sometimes forget this and then end up choking on my food when I hear someone from another Western European country saying something that, here in the UK, would totally unacceptable. We forget that we are very likely the least racist country in world. As a result there is more likely hood of Katie Price becoming a Nobel Physics prize winner than there being any strong BNP contingent in the UK.
The only way they would ever make head way is if around 50% of the country was racist, and if that was the case the problem would not be that the BNP is in power but that 50% of or country had turned racist over night.
'Ah' you say, 'but it is not the fact their are racist, it is the fact that the BNP can go on the Television and convince people they are actually nice people and not racist and then get votes that way, misleading the public into electing them'.
That could be very true under different circumstances, but lets think about this, which program are they going on? The Jeremy Kyle show? Trisha? No, they are going on question time, what sort of naive retards do you think are going to be watching?
Do you think that will a little demagoguery Nick Griffin is going to have the intellectual class eating out of his hand? If this is the case we better ban him from YouTube too!
At the end of the day sure, if he was going to talk to teenagers in run down areas, if he was talking to those who watch and enjoy Jeremy Kyle, if he was going to talk to those who are borderline mentally handicapped then I would be concerned, but question time? If you think his mind control powers are that good you have been watching a little too much Star Wars.
Oh and just a reminder, the reason why their people got any votes in Europe in the first place is because discussion of immigration (nothing to do with race) was repressed and as a result no one would address or consider what was on the minds of a reasonable amount of people in the UK. These people (rightly or wrongly) then voted for the only people they saw discussing the issue. In short repressing discussion doesn't really help anyone.
When Question time does air, I will not be fretting in my boots. Oh contraire, I will be relaxing in my chair pleased in the knowledge that thanks to freedom of speech these people and their policies are going to be exposed on television for everyone to see in the way nature intended.
Sunday, 18 October 2009
Geert Wilders is in the UK, hmmm sensitive topic I feel...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8311059.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/16/geert-wilders-dutch-far-right
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/wilders-hails-his-arrival-in-uk-as-victory-for-free-speech-1804347.html
Geert Wilders is in the UK, hmmm sensitive topic I feel... but nonetheless one that needs commenting on.
This man claims that Islam is a threat to Western civilisation and so on and so forth. Now I don't want to get involved in a discussion about Islam itself because as far as I'm concerned there is a bigger point to be discussed that covers Islam and a whole lot more. That is freedom of speech.
Now last time I checked most people agreed that freedom of speech is a fundamental tenant of Western democracy. To be honest I believe more in freedom of speech than I do in most of the other elements of a democracy. If anything the other elements are there to ensure that freedom of speech exists.
Don't get me wrong it is not without its problems, you cannot have absolute freedom of speech otherwise you would be able to incite violence and various other crimes. You also have to consider things such as stirring up hatred against racial groups too, but then this should come under the category of stirring up violence.
But there is a balance to be achieved and this balance is fundamental to the Western way of life and without it this country would soon go to pot.
So why is it so important?
Simple, a ban on offence is a ban on criticism. This is why dictators love restricting speech, it is why communist countries love restrictions and but this is not why the governement likes making restictions.
The reason our governement likes restricting speech is not to prevent criticism of the government itself (not in this case anyway) but to prevent the criticism of those who have big mouths. The government doesn't want the Islam to be offended, because whenever they are they take to the streets with banners saying various unpleasant things.
But wait a minute, since when was that a legitimate to supress the expression of opinion?
Really now, since when?
If I decide to pick up some retarded opinion such as apes are in fact superior and must be made to reign in the UK, if I then built a following that would then protest in a very aggressive fashion everytime someone said something against 'ape-ism' it would then be retarded to think 'oh best not offend them, better prevent people saying anything against ape-ism and prevent people coming to the UK to talk about it.
The first thing I was taught regarding freedom of speech in my Human Rights lectures was that it is only offensive opinions that need to be protected in the first place, because if the opinion was not offensive no one would be complaining about it.
If you can't criticise then the whole playing field because un-leveled, can you imagine going to court after being accused of something you did not do, and then once in court you are told that you can defend yourself just as long as you don't criticise the credibility or the storey of the prosecutor. You'd be wondering what exactly you can do and in short, you'd be screwed.
People kicking up a fuss was never a reason to let them get their way or as Winston Churchill once said "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." And this is exactly what the government is doing, I mean lets be honest anyone who has signs saying 'freedom go to hell' should be open to a bit of debate and that goes whether the person adheres to a religion, ideology, 'science' or anything else. I, like anyone have things that are important to me, things that I don't like other people making fun of or criticising (especially when the criticisim is from the point of ignorance, which it often is) but I think people should have the freedom to do those things even though it offends me because then I know when I have to say things that offend others (and I will) they will have to accept that I am free to do so just them same. I don't go out of my way to offend and I don't think people should generally, but that doesn't mean for one minute that offence should be prevented at the cost of genuine freedoms.
It is time of the UK to grow up in a way, instead of trying to keep everyone happy and stopping play everytime someone wants to sulk we should accept that we're all adults and that offence is going to happen whether we like it or not. If we don't every aspect of our lives will be controlled by those who tantrum the loudest and most inappropriately whenever something happens they don't like. In a line; freedom will go to hell.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/16/geert-wilders-dutch-far-right
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/wilders-hails-his-arrival-in-uk-as-victory-for-free-speech-1804347.html
Geert Wilders is in the UK, hmmm sensitive topic I feel... but nonetheless one that needs commenting on.
This man claims that Islam is a threat to Western civilisation and so on and so forth. Now I don't want to get involved in a discussion about Islam itself because as far as I'm concerned there is a bigger point to be discussed that covers Islam and a whole lot more. That is freedom of speech.
Now last time I checked most people agreed that freedom of speech is a fundamental tenant of Western democracy. To be honest I believe more in freedom of speech than I do in most of the other elements of a democracy. If anything the other elements are there to ensure that freedom of speech exists.
Don't get me wrong it is not without its problems, you cannot have absolute freedom of speech otherwise you would be able to incite violence and various other crimes. You also have to consider things such as stirring up hatred against racial groups too, but then this should come under the category of stirring up violence.
But there is a balance to be achieved and this balance is fundamental to the Western way of life and without it this country would soon go to pot.
So why is it so important?
Simple, a ban on offence is a ban on criticism. This is why dictators love restricting speech, it is why communist countries love restrictions and but this is not why the governement likes making restictions.
The reason our governement likes restricting speech is not to prevent criticism of the government itself (not in this case anyway) but to prevent the criticism of those who have big mouths. The government doesn't want the Islam to be offended, because whenever they are they take to the streets with banners saying various unpleasant things.
But wait a minute, since when was that a legitimate to supress the expression of opinion?
Really now, since when?
If I decide to pick up some retarded opinion such as apes are in fact superior and must be made to reign in the UK, if I then built a following that would then protest in a very aggressive fashion everytime someone said something against 'ape-ism' it would then be retarded to think 'oh best not offend them, better prevent people saying anything against ape-ism and prevent people coming to the UK to talk about it.
The first thing I was taught regarding freedom of speech in my Human Rights lectures was that it is only offensive opinions that need to be protected in the first place, because if the opinion was not offensive no one would be complaining about it.
If you can't criticise then the whole playing field because un-leveled, can you imagine going to court after being accused of something you did not do, and then once in court you are told that you can defend yourself just as long as you don't criticise the credibility or the storey of the prosecutor. You'd be wondering what exactly you can do and in short, you'd be screwed.
People kicking up a fuss was never a reason to let them get their way or as Winston Churchill once said "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." And this is exactly what the government is doing, I mean lets be honest anyone who has signs saying 'freedom go to hell' should be open to a bit of debate and that goes whether the person adheres to a religion, ideology, 'science' or anything else. I, like anyone have things that are important to me, things that I don't like other people making fun of or criticising (especially when the criticisim is from the point of ignorance, which it often is) but I think people should have the freedom to do those things even though it offends me because then I know when I have to say things that offend others (and I will) they will have to accept that I am free to do so just them same. I don't go out of my way to offend and I don't think people should generally, but that doesn't mean for one minute that offence should be prevented at the cost of genuine freedoms.
It is time of the UK to grow up in a way, instead of trying to keep everyone happy and stopping play everytime someone wants to sulk we should accept that we're all adults and that offence is going to happen whether we like it or not. If we don't every aspect of our lives will be controlled by those who tantrum the loudest and most inappropriately whenever something happens they don't like. In a line; freedom will go to hell.
Saturday, 17 October 2009
Goldman Sachs: opps I did it again!
Just a quick thank you to Goldman Sachs. You have done such sterling work in restoring the confidence of the public in the banks.
In such a short time you have proved that you can repent and learn from past mistakes. You have made huge efforts to change a reckless and damaging culture so that it is now so wholely reformed that it can hard be recognised anymore when compared to the original bonus fuelled, risk driven foolishness of yesterday (almost literally yesterday).
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?Bank_has_%A310bn_for_pay_and_bonuses&in_article_id=752891&in_page_id=34
Oh wait, not I must have been thinking of someone else!
What a bunch of idiots. This does nothing for Bank publicity. Don't get me wrong I'm no fool, I know that if you want the best you have to pay the best, if you want the best to work like dogs then you have to pay them even more. This is the principle that capitalism is based on. In a competitive market the people who need to be in the best jobs are in the best jobs because therein lies the money.
If the banks start paying rubbish wages then the next generation of super intelligent uber hardworking men and women will be going into another less important industry instead... and that does not benefit anyone. Especially the UK where finance is our life blood.
The system works quite well, unless you're incompetant and/or lazy in which case you just resent other people getting money when you don't have it. I don't get million pound bonuses (yet) but then I never slogged my guts out through the whole of GCSE, A-level and finally in Oxbridge so that I could get a job in a bank... in other words I have had some actual enjoyment in my life, and as a result I'm happy with a decent normal wage. Those who did sacrifice the whole of their younger lives however, do deserve a porsche to show for it.
So why do I think that this news is so bad?
Well apart from the fact that they just make the headlines and look like the scum of the earth, apart from the fact that the G20 just signed an agreement to curb the bonus culture.... the whole problem we had was being of the short sightedness of the bonus behaviour.
When one gets their bonus at the end of the year all one cares about is ensuring there is a huge pot of cash coming at the end of the year. This inevitably leads to short sighted dealing. If you want to reward your staff make it so they get their bonuses on a three year delay. That way if your bank goes under three years of bonuses go with it! Quite an incentive to make sure your bank is looking healthy in the long term.
To be honest the boys on the trading floor aren't the ones that make the difference, it is the policy managers on the board... so theirs should be on a 4 year time delay.
If all banks are forced to do this then when you move banks there will be no overlap or gap between payments if you move banks and so everyone is happy and no one has to worry about missing their yacht payments.
Right, now that the world of finance is put right I'm going to shave...
In such a short time you have proved that you can repent and learn from past mistakes. You have made huge efforts to change a reckless and damaging culture so that it is now so wholely reformed that it can hard be recognised anymore when compared to the original bonus fuelled, risk driven foolishness of yesterday (almost literally yesterday).
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?Bank_has_%A310bn_for_pay_and_bonuses&in_article_id=752891&in_page_id=34
Oh wait, not I must have been thinking of someone else!
What a bunch of idiots. This does nothing for Bank publicity. Don't get me wrong I'm no fool, I know that if you want the best you have to pay the best, if you want the best to work like dogs then you have to pay them even more. This is the principle that capitalism is based on. In a competitive market the people who need to be in the best jobs are in the best jobs because therein lies the money.
If the banks start paying rubbish wages then the next generation of super intelligent uber hardworking men and women will be going into another less important industry instead... and that does not benefit anyone. Especially the UK where finance is our life blood.
The system works quite well, unless you're incompetant and/or lazy in which case you just resent other people getting money when you don't have it. I don't get million pound bonuses (yet) but then I never slogged my guts out through the whole of GCSE, A-level and finally in Oxbridge so that I could get a job in a bank... in other words I have had some actual enjoyment in my life, and as a result I'm happy with a decent normal wage. Those who did sacrifice the whole of their younger lives however, do deserve a porsche to show for it.
So why do I think that this news is so bad?
Well apart from the fact that they just make the headlines and look like the scum of the earth, apart from the fact that the G20 just signed an agreement to curb the bonus culture.... the whole problem we had was being of the short sightedness of the bonus behaviour.
When one gets their bonus at the end of the year all one cares about is ensuring there is a huge pot of cash coming at the end of the year. This inevitably leads to short sighted dealing. If you want to reward your staff make it so they get their bonuses on a three year delay. That way if your bank goes under three years of bonuses go with it! Quite an incentive to make sure your bank is looking healthy in the long term.
To be honest the boys on the trading floor aren't the ones that make the difference, it is the policy managers on the board... so theirs should be on a 4 year time delay.
If all banks are forced to do this then when you move banks there will be no overlap or gap between payments if you move banks and so everyone is happy and no one has to worry about missing their yacht payments.
Right, now that the world of finance is put right I'm going to shave...
Wednesday, 7 October 2009
It is not complicated. The 50% tax is just a dumb idea...
Not long ago the Labour government announced that it was going to introduce a 50% tax rate on those earning more than £150,000.
On the face of it this will instantly seem like a good idea to some people, particularly those of a socialism slant, those who are idealistic but not necessarily partially minded, in short people who should never be allow to run the country. Labour basically.
The idea is that those who are earning lots of money can afford to lose a bit more, after all, they have plenty to lose. Meanwhile those who don’t have much shouldn’t have that which they have taken away from them.
This is often popular because after all you don’t earn over £150,000, do you? So it isn’t going to sting you, and the number of people who do earn that much aren’t really going to carry that many votes, because there are so few of them. So it is a win win situation, right? Piddle on the rich and get the approval of everyone else.
But for anyone with the foresight that goes beyond the end of their nose there is a problem with this: it’s a steaming pile of manure.
First of all let’s tackle the practical element. It holds the most sway for most people and it will lead naturally on to the moral element.
The people who are really rich, I mean seriously, stinking ‘I spend most of my time on my yacht with orange and silicon women’, are in a seriously small minority. They also don’t get ‘pay packets’. They don’t get a cheque paid into their bank account each month for them to pay their mortgage and for their food and gas, they own companies. They get their money through interest in liquid assets, they get it from shares, they get it from buying and selling products across the globe and they get paid dividends, none of which is covered by this new level of income tax.
Even that which is covered by income tax isn’t going to end up in the states pockets because they pay very smart people very good money to make sure that it stays in their own pockets, after all that is what a high price accountant is for.
If by some miracle it was going to hurt them then they would up sticks and move to another country, and then not only would we not get the extra tax, you have just lost all the other tax that they pay too, VAT, Stamp duty etc etc etc. Have a look at the times
1 The
Unlike communist countries like
2 We’re not the
Unlike the
Also you’re only one BA ticket away from the Italian, French and all the other Riveras that the uber rich love so well.
3 Our tax isn’t high
That’s right, the crux of the matter. Living in the UK is expensive but no as much as living in Sweden or many other states with super high taxes… if we put high tax on everything all that will do will make a high demand for movers as all the super rich hop on a plane to the next stable country.
So increase taxes and watch you tax revenue drop like a stone… good plan Gordon.
Now for the moral element. Let’s consider the poor chap who is actually going to have to pay this retarded tax. Generally this is going to cover Barristers, some GP’s and a few other professionals. It won’t cover the Directors of banks of course because they will have moved to
So professionals will get stung. Nice, after all they deserve it don’t they? While you were in University getting lashed to the point you couldn’t remember your name they were in the library boring themselves half to death in order to ensure they get a good job. But now Labour wants to take 25k out of the last 50k they earn to pay for their own cock-ups.
It doesn’t take a genius to work out that eventually they may just stop working so hard in the first place. Why not just work less hours and earn 150k and avoid extra tax altogether?
Or if you are a talented student why would you get a job as a lawyer in the
Pay to train people and then watch them fly abroad… very efficient!
Finally we get to the
Well you have to take into account all the costs they incur. First of all you have the sports car. This is essential; there is no other way to travel in one of the biggest cities in the world than by a Porsche or Ferrari. No other vehicle can really make the most of their performance like a Porsche can when being driven from traffic light to traffic light at 12-25mph. All that German engineering really pays off when speed right up to 35 from the lights and then hit the brakes because there is a speed camera coming up on the left hand side. Of course it is not just the car you have to pay for, there is also the congestion charge and the parking which is currently about £7,000 per day. That 200k job doesn’t seem so much now does it?
That is before of course you have factored in your £5,000 per year coke addiction to compensate for the lack of endorphins in your body because you haven’t had time to have sex with your wife for the past 4 years.
Then you’ll need a substantial pension because you won’t have any children to look after you as you and your wife were too busy chasing your careers to have time for any type of family.
Hmmm guess that 200k doesn’t seem so much now does it? But don’t worry soon it will be less as you work 60-80 hours per week to pay for Mr Browns spending sprees!
N.B. I do appreciate there is on last category of rich person I have not addressed who will be hit by this tax, Mr ‘Daddy paid for me to go to Eton and Oxford/gave me a great big inheritance/got me a job in his company’ and now I have tons of cash even though I’m about as competent as any middle manager who just has to make do with the £20k to £30k that they earn through merit.
This is unfair and these people could be taxed for all I care, however that isn’t going to sort out the inequality of nepotism. That is a different matter altogether which ought to be addressed separately.
Monday, 5 October 2009
Who caused the recession? Who? who? who?
Right here is a quick summary of how the credit crunch and the 08/09 recession happened and who is to blame. Why am I telling you these things? Well everyone likes to rant about these things… or at least I do and if we’re going to rant we might as well do it properly.
After all you can’t go bashing the wrong people, that would be just wrong, wouldn’t it.
1.
2. Thick American mortgage lenders started lending lots of money to people to buy houses that they couldn’t afford.
Now to begin with this doesn’t sound like anything serious, I mean if you lend money to people and they don’t keep up payments that isn’t your fault right? Well usually yes, in this case… seriously no.
First these thick Estate agents (realtors) would give a mortgage on one set of payments and often not really explain that in two years the cost of the payments would go up… now even the thickest most delinquent person can realise that poor people who can only just afford the first payment are not going to be able to pay the new increased rate in two years. As a result they will default.
Second these people cared so little about whether they would actually pay the monthly instalments that they would accept ‘stated income’ which is where you provide no proof of what you earn you would just tell them and they would take word for it. Good to know the system wasn’t open to abuse, idiots.
Third the people who were selling these mortgages would get up to $10,000 in commission so obviously they would give them to anyone who had a pulse. Some people were made millionaires selling these things.
Apparently even the president at the time (GW Bush) thought they were a good idea and endorsed these mortgages in a speech. But then he was never going to be able to criticise them because most of these mortgages were being given to low income Hispanics, which means if he said that they should be more careful he would look like a complete and utter racist/class bigot.
3. These mortgages were bundled together (good ones and bad ones) and the their risk was sold across the world to other banks including the major financial centre of the world….
London’s mistake was that it didn’t bother checking what mortgages were in these risk bundles they were buying so when the American banks when to the wall they didn’t know whether they were holding a bag full of money or a bad full of rabid rats…. As a result everyone freaked out and stopped lending to each other not going what cards they were holding. This freeze on lending prevented everyone getting credit and thus the ‘credit crunch’ began.
4. Who’s fault is it? Well I am never one to start pointing out who is to fault, ha ha ha aha ha ah, ok maybe I am.
Over in the
Over here in the
There is a nice little speech that was made by Gordon Brown to the British financial industry. He said (I paraphrase) ‘I was told to regulate the banking industry and I didn’t and look how well it has all turned out’. This was said a year or two before the crunch kicked off obviously. Opps, poor Gordon now you look like a bit of a burke!
So how to summarise? Hmmmm…
Well if you’re an American I guess you blame the morons who gave money to people who couldn’t afford it and didn’t tell them they were going to be paying a fat lot more in 2 years time, easy enough really!
If you’re British I guess you blame the retards in the banks who thought that it would be a good idea to purchase risk from mortgagors and not check how much of this risk was sub-prime and how much was from people who could actually pay their bills… or blame Gordon Brown for not regulating those banks.
I’m not sure if regulation would have actually stopped the banks cocking the whole lot up but what can I say, I’m just mad at him because he won’t call a election.
Friday, 2 October 2009
Come, let us be unfair to men and patronise women!
Today I read a wonderful article in Counsel Magazine. It is called Women in the law (August 2009).
It explained the findings of a report looking in to the ‘experiences of women as victims, offenders and workers in the criminal justice system’. The report was called Engendering Justice –from policy to practice.
Obviously it is very important for me to point out how I feel about women in the work place. Women are essential. They are always to be in the work place because they break it up from being a ‘boys club’ and that is more important that just upholding the principle. Before women were in companies it was often common practice for high power males to ‘lunch’ or t put high power positions in it another way get totally off their faces drunk and then spend the rest of the day sleeping under their desks. The reason why this practice has all but died out is largely because women arrived on the scene and rightfully considered this practice completely inappropriate and highly inefficient. Also men are risk takers, high testosterone men are more likely to great risk takers. Now I will defend the high testosterone risk taking man to the hilt , without him we would still be in the stone age…. But without the fire, but even I can see that have too many HT males in one place and you get what has happened in investment banking: meltdown.
Therefore it is easy to see that almost every area of business, public sector or private needs to have women.
So with that in mind I can now move on to the problem I have with these reports.
Substantive equality
“to treat people in the same way may simply be to reproduce disadvantage, thus perpetuation discrimination.”
“Formal equality assumes that all people should be treated alike. Substantive equality is directed at achieving substantively equal outcomes.”
Right….. so first of all what they mean by the CJS is institutionally sexist is that the CJS does not favour women. This apparently is a bad thing. Apparently those evil scumbags at the CJS treat both women and men the same! How abhorrent!
Now I know what you’re thinking… the reason why they have to ‘positively discriminate’ (which by the way is still discriminating against men) in favour of women is because they often have to take time out to look after their children and so on and so forth. But why does that entitle women to get given advantages? Why should they have the penny and the bun? A man cannot spend years with his children and then come back and expect to be promoted over those who haven’t, why do women get this and men don’t. Don’t get me wrong I’ve not problem with women getting this advantage but then to be fair it has to be applied to men as well.
Workers in the CJS
Apparently women now enter the bar in the same numbers as men, all good there we can agree. But there are not so many at the top… well considering how many years it will take for today’s women move up the scale that is no surprise, given time all that will change on its on, which I’m sure we can agree it good too.
But one last beef with this sort of report why is it that they do this report and because there is not 50% women at the top of the chain they think something is wrong. How come they don’t do a check at the local board’s sewage facility and why there is not 50% women there? Why are women to have assistance to get into high earning jobs but society doesn’t expect them to have to get up to their waists in human faeces? No one asks why half of low paid road builders aren’t women… as a matter of fact the very same article states that women make up 5% of the prison population 5%! No does that mean that the police force is sexist against men? Does that mean they are institutionally sexist AGAINST men? If so with a statistic as huge as that surely we should be commissioning reports into why women aren’t being arrested for violent crimes just the same as men?
Common sense would suggest that women don’t commit the same number of crimes as men, but if you start suggesting such patterns then you have to start accepting that other patterns may exist too and I don’t think that is a pill anyone in the Guardian camp is ever going to swallow.
Finally with all these reports being made and more importantly paid for isn’t anyone worried abut the cost of these things to society. The report suggested that equality and diversity training should be compulsory for all barristers and judges; can you imagine how much that would cost? In a time when the West is seeking to compete against the East on all levels to keep its position as the dominant economic power what real benefit is having to throw millions of pounds at training the legal profession to put women before men. If you want to keep legal costs down here is an idea for everyone, stop commissioning papers to tell us all how we should all be ashamed of ourselves for treating men and women equally and accept that women aren’t stupid, they don’t lack motivation, if they want a highly paid job they are hard working resourceful and intelligent. To put it another way sisters can do it for themselves…
It explained the findings of a report looking in to the ‘experiences of women as victims, offenders and workers in the criminal justice system’. The report was called Engendering Justice –from policy to practice.
Obviously it is very important for me to point out how I feel about women in the work place. Women are essential. They are always to be in the work place because they break it up from being a ‘boys club’ and that is more important that just upholding the principle. Before women were in companies it was often common practice for high power males to ‘lunch’ or t put high power positions in it another way get totally off their faces drunk and then spend the rest of the day sleeping under their desks. The reason why this practice has all but died out is largely because women arrived on the scene and rightfully considered this practice completely inappropriate and highly inefficient. Also men are risk takers, high testosterone men are more likely to great risk takers. Now I will defend the high testosterone risk taking man to the hilt , without him we would still be in the stone age…. But without the fire, but even I can see that have too many HT males in one place and you get what has happened in investment banking: meltdown.
Therefore it is easy to see that almost every area of business, public sector or private needs to have women.
So with that in mind I can now move on to the problem I have with these reports.
Substantive equality
“to treat people in the same way may simply be to reproduce disadvantage, thus perpetuation discrimination.”
“Formal equality assumes that all people should be treated alike. Substantive equality is directed at achieving substantively equal outcomes.”
Right….. so first of all what they mean by the CJS is institutionally sexist is that the CJS does not favour women. This apparently is a bad thing. Apparently those evil scumbags at the CJS treat both women and men the same! How abhorrent!
Now I know what you’re thinking… the reason why they have to ‘positively discriminate’ (which by the way is still discriminating against men) in favour of women is because they often have to take time out to look after their children and so on and so forth. But why does that entitle women to get given advantages? Why should they have the penny and the bun? A man cannot spend years with his children and then come back and expect to be promoted over those who haven’t, why do women get this and men don’t. Don’t get me wrong I’ve not problem with women getting this advantage but then to be fair it has to be applied to men as well.
Workers in the CJS
Apparently women now enter the bar in the same numbers as men, all good there we can agree. But there are not so many at the top… well considering how many years it will take for today’s women move up the scale that is no surprise, given time all that will change on its on, which I’m sure we can agree it good too.
But one last beef with this sort of report why is it that they do this report and because there is not 50% women at the top of the chain they think something is wrong. How come they don’t do a check at the local board’s sewage facility and why there is not 50% women there? Why are women to have assistance to get into high earning jobs but society doesn’t expect them to have to get up to their waists in human faeces? No one asks why half of low paid road builders aren’t women… as a matter of fact the very same article states that women make up 5% of the prison population 5%! No does that mean that the police force is sexist against men? Does that mean they are institutionally sexist AGAINST men? If so with a statistic as huge as that surely we should be commissioning reports into why women aren’t being arrested for violent crimes just the same as men?
Common sense would suggest that women don’t commit the same number of crimes as men, but if you start suggesting such patterns then you have to start accepting that other patterns may exist too and I don’t think that is a pill anyone in the Guardian camp is ever going to swallow.
Finally with all these reports being made and more importantly paid for isn’t anyone worried abut the cost of these things to society. The report suggested that equality and diversity training should be compulsory for all barristers and judges; can you imagine how much that would cost? In a time when the West is seeking to compete against the East on all levels to keep its position as the dominant economic power what real benefit is having to throw millions of pounds at training the legal profession to put women before men. If you want to keep legal costs down here is an idea for everyone, stop commissioning papers to tell us all how we should all be ashamed of ourselves for treating men and women equally and accept that women aren’t stupid, they don’t lack motivation, if they want a highly paid job they are hard working resourceful and intelligent. To put it another way sisters can do it for themselves…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
