March For The Alternative - London Saturday 26th March

[fur_q]

For those against the cuts there's safety in numbers on this (very left leaning) forum and it hardly seems worth trying to argue against the masses, but in the real world I don't believe they are in the majority at all. The guardian has a fairly left-wing readership and even they don't agree.

I really don't have the time or the inclination (What with having a job and everything) to dive fully into this argument but I really can't see what people think the alternative to the cuts is when the country is massively in debt. Those that say that we can just tax the banks are absolutely clueless when it comes to understanding how the banking industry and the British economy works. It's a completely impractical, uneducated, idealogical nonsense suggestion.

If anybody does have a realistic, workable solution to reigning in public spending then feel free to come forward with it.

[eFestivals]

I really don't have the time or the inclination (What with having a job and everything) to dive fully into this argument but I really can't see what people think the alternative to the cuts is when the country is massively in debt.

If anybody does have a realistic, workable solution to reigning in public spending then feel free to come forward with it.

There is no alternative (ultimately) to balancing the books. But there are an infinite number of different ways to balance those books.

To use a simple domestic analogy, if you're spending more than you earn you have to reign in your spending and choose a method of paying off the debts you've built up. But that doesn't mean that every penny that you earn HAS TO BE allocated to paying off those debts immediately before you feed and house yourself - you can choose how quickly or slowly you pay off those debts, and you do, based on the impact elsewhere (such as the ability to feed yourself) of those debt repayments.

In the world of macro economics mixed with that analogy, if you don't leave enough of your income to feed yourself, then you starve. And because you're starving, you're not able to work as hard and fast as you previously were, and so the debts don't actually get paid off as quickly as you hoped to do.

The idea within that analogy is *EXACTLY* what happens in the world of macro economics if you cut too hard and too fast - there is no example in the world which has ever worked differently to that. Dave Moron is doing the exact same thing as Thatcher did, which she claimed would grow the economy but in reality made it shrink. The only difference it comes to make in a macro world is a movement of resources to the richest, while sucking those further down the scale dry. It doesn't have the claimed effect.

[Macca3031]

Look we need to make cuts now, otherwise how on earth are we going to afford to reverse the 50% tax from all those wealth creaters

[bombfrog]

get rid of the monarchy

[bombfrog]

can someone explain to me what these people do that makes them so valuable. They let the system perpetuate itself until it fell apart... so why are they so clever?

[bombfrog]

nope..

it's the one that drains the system without putting anything into it...

[bombfrog]

if you don't have the time or inclination to join in, why did you?

[eFestivals]

The same monarchy which makes more money for this country than it costs?

where's the proof of that? There's zilch, nothing, not an itoa of anything to back it up!!!!

I don't even know where to begin with this comment, but presumably you don't understand the fairly simple market forces involved in rewarding those people that make the most money for a company financially?

Simple forces for the simple minded.

The Dutch have the right idea with their bankers. The banks are saying "but the best brains will go", to which the people (and so ultimately the government) are saying "what, you mean the 'best brains' that got us into this shit? Let them leave" and "there's more than enough smart Dutch people who are happy to do the same job for 25% of the pay. And the proof from those already doing that is that they're not worse at the job".

Even on a basic level you must understand that paying people more attracts better people and when you've got a multi-billion pound banking industry (which this country relies on) to run you need the best people, right?

The fact of their f**k up - which were the actions of the very stupid, not the smart (cos even my kid knows that you can't make risks and liabilities 'disappear' - gets to show that we'd be better off financially with no banks at all.

They like to go on about how they paid £80Bn in tax in 2006, but they were shown as creating over a £1Tn blackhole in less than 10 years - which gets to show they paid less tax than the money they 'lost'!!!

(They didn't really 'lose' it. They took it home in their pay packets ).

Your comment just makes you sound like some crazy communist who thinks we should all get paid the same.

do please tell me how any banker can earn anything without a lowly paid admin person to type up the deals he's done.

Nobody is "punishing" anybody, they're just saving money that needs to be saved. Using emotive language like that helps nobody, not least your argument.

did the disabled lose this country £1Tn?

So why are the disabled being punished by being made to help pay back what the bankers lost?

[eFestivals]

Banking is one of the few really successful industries we have left, they bring billions into the country every year.

that is factually incorrect.

The amount the banks, etc, paid in tax in the 13 years prior to the crash (the years they were considered 'successful', the years they were considered successful' on the basis of CDO's and DCS's) is less than the amount that the govt has had to spend in bailing them out.

So if you consider 'successful' to be a drain on the economy and not a benefit, then yes, they were hugely successful.

There are many different types of "bankers", some do their jobs well and some don't, some earn a lot and some don't, some trade in risky things like sub-prime mortgages

but all get the bonus.

The trouble with people like you is that it's a bit 'right-on' to hate bankers at the moment so you just jump on the hate bandwagon, lump them all in together and start shooting your mouth off about something you don't understand.

like you have with believing them 'successful' and that "they bring billions into the country every year" you mean? PMSL.

[cejx]

as far as I am concerned, the state bailed out the banks when they made their monumental f**k ups, leaving us in this mess, now its time that the banks bailed out the state.

I suspect there are many wondering the point of injecting so much public money into the banking systems, just to see them piss it up the wall again.

[bombfrog]

where's the proof of that? There's zilch, nothing, not an itoa of anything to back it up!!!!

[eFestivals]

Yes there is, they have to publish their accounts and the figures are there in black and white.

Even if you assume (like tonyblair) that the crown estates would still make the same money without the royal family being in place you are not taking into consideration the other effects of having a royal family. Even a very modest decrease in tourism would lose us more than the 30m they cost us, which is a very small amount of money. It's really not hard to see where the surplus comes from, or prove it.

The crown estates WOULD make the same money - and definitely more too - if they weren't supporting the royal family.

As for tourism, France has more than us. Where's their royal family then?

Benefit cheats don't come bigger than the immigrant Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg family.

Edited March 28, 2011 by eFestivals

[hilton]

Banking is one of the few really successful industries we have left, they bring billions into the country every year.

There are many different types of "bankers", some do their jobs well and some don't, some earn a lot and some don't, some trade in risky things like sub-prime mortgages, some are just their to fill the cash machines.

The trouble with people like you is that it's a bit 'right-on' to hate bankers at the moment so you just jump on the hate bandwagon, lump them all in together and start shooting your mouth off about something you don't understand. If you want to carry on thinking that you can solve the financial crisis by capping "bankers" pay then you go on thinking that but it would only compound the problem.

[bombfrog]

The fact of their f**k up - which were the actions of the very stupid, not the smart (cos even my kid knows that you can't make risks and liabilities 'disappear' - gets to show that we'd be better off financially with no banks at all.

[bombfrog]

I think the whole idea that most people come here because of the Royal Family laughable, and rather ignorant (and disrespectful) of what else there is for visitors to enjoy

[Ommadawn]

don't allow one baker to earn 7 million a year (ffs!)

[eFestivals]

Again, who are "they". Who exactly caused this f**k up? Or, like tonyblair do you just lump anyone that works in any kind of bank doing whatever kind of job into one big generic group called "bankers"?

My brother in law works in an investment bank. He has a PHD in physics and is one of the brightest people I've met. I'm fairly sure that he didn't cause the banking crisis and I'm fairly sure he doesn't get any kind of bonus. But in your uneducated eyes I doubt you see any difference between him and the (probably relatively small number) of (mostly American) individuals who made some of the top level decisions which caused the crisis in the first place.

Whilst it's easy to see all bankers as faceless greedy stripy shirted w*nkers, the reality is slightly more complicated than that, and the reality doesn't really fit with the "fight the power" ethic that many round here seem to have.

Who caused it? If I could be bothered I could dig out the specific names of the individuals directly responsible (English, not yanks!!) for coming up with the ideas, plus their bosses who authorised them to do it.

Then there were all of the unthinking minions with their grossly obscene wages (yearly bonuses bigger than most people's life-time wage for many of them. No, I'm not saying this from ignorance I very much know the truth of it) who implemented it, so f**king stupid and "just following orders" (it's no excuse in war, why should it be an excuse in banking or any other job?), only interested in their pay packet and not what they were doing. The ones who didn't do it are their admin staff - but they were and are quite happy with their bonuses of OUR money too.

It wasn't "(mostly American) individuals who made some of the top level decisions which caused the crisis in the first place". Now you're just showing your own ignorance. There were individuals on all levels within city banks, hedge funds and other 'city' firms who are considered 'smart' in your eyes yet are too f**king stupid to realise that shuffling paper can NEVER reduce the ultimate risk of lending money. If you'd read just a little on the subject you'd know this. The sub-prime mortgages were one of the consequences of these 'smart' people's gross stupidity, not the origin of it.

Bob Diamond. He was a part of the cause, he's just as f**king stupid as the rest of them. He's just picked up his £10M+ pay packet. A pay packet from a bank that wouldn't even exist if the taxpayers hadn't bailed out other banks. Is Bob doing anything which any person with a modicum of financial nouce couldn't do? Nope. It's f**k all that's difficult, being a toe-rag salesman.

eFestivals started with funding from some of these public school educated under-35 millionaire scumbag thick w*nkers - at least some of it went somewhere good.

[anoldhippie@60]

Any news on Stevie Nicks.

[llcoolphil]

Because he has a different opinion to you?

[llcoolphil]

For those against the cuts there's safety in numbers on this (very left leanuing) forum and it hardly seems worth trying to argue against the masses, but in the real world I don't believe they are in the majority at all. The guardian has a fairly left-wing readership and even they don't agree.

I really don't have the time or the inclination (What with having a job and everything) to dive fully into this argument but I really can't see what people think the alternative to the cuts is when the country is massively in debt. Those that say that we can just tax the banks are absolutely clueless when it comes to understanding how the banking industry and the British economy works. It's a completely impractical, uneducated, idealogical nonsense suggestion.

If anybody does have a realistic, workable solution to reigning in public spending then feel free to come forward with it.

Edited March 28, 2011 by llcoolphil

[guypjfreak]

personally i think the way some of those protesters acted is shameful there not there to protest but just to riot and they couldnt give a f**k about what and who gets hurt .

as usual its a few stupid kids that dont understand that all that damage has to be paid for so its more money taken away from the hands of people that need it.

if you cant protest peacefully stay at home and play your f**king call of duty and take your anger out that way ,better still go smash your own place up .

PEASANTS :angry: :angry:

[llcoolphil]

personally i think the way some of those protesters acted is shameful there not there to protest but just to riot and they couldnt give a f**k about what and who gets hurt .

as usual its a few stupid kids that dont understand that all that damage has to be paid for so its more money taken away from the hands of people that need it.

if you cant protest peacefully stay at home and play your f**king call of duty and take your anger out that way ,better still go smash your own place up .

PEASANTS :angry: :angry:

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

personally i think the way some of those protesters acted is shameful there not there to protest but just to riot and they couldnt give a f**k about what and who gets hurt .

as usual its a few stupid kids that dont understand that all that damage has to be paid for so its more money taken away from the hands of people that need it.

if you cant protest peacefully stay at home and play your f**king call of duty and take your anger out that way ,better still go smash your own place up .

PEASANTS :angry: :angry:

[llcoolphil]

I'm not what you'd class as a kid, but i'd be interested to know how you it was kid? Second of all, you could turn that to anything. Of course no-one endorses violent protest.

To the poster who spoke about the government being in debt, i suggest you look at the debt levels over the last 65 years, and compare now to then.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

I endorse violent protest.