I liked this from the Guardian this morning:
So those bankers whose bonuses George Osborne is going to court to defend are doing just fine.
In the meantime there are disabled and other people all over the country waiting to be taken to court for the crime of having the room they need to live.
The divide between the have yachts and the have nots has never been so wide.
Welcome to 21st century neoliberalism, to which, I promise you, there is an alternative.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I think you have misunderstood the situation. All Mr Osborne is defending are the UK people themselves. Not everyone who works for a bank has a boat. However if the American banks pull out of the UK then we will all be in trouble. Everyone right down to the cleaners who look after their homes.
A few of the boat makers are in the UK, so more Uk jobs saved and looked after by people owning boats.
2.8 million people have taken boating holidays in the Uk last year. With 1.2 million boat owner houses. With 600,000 over 2.3 metres.
Let’s not be silly
I am a boat owner household
Two boats in fact
Inflatable kayaks
But you’re being fatuous to suggest that this has anything to do with the issue referred to
With respect Peter, that’s rubbish. The legislation Osbourne opposes is being put in place to try to prevent the bonus culture in the City leading to another financial crisis. That’s of benefit to the vast majority of the UK population and UK plc as a whole, but we have a government that is so in thrall to our bloated and corrupt finance sector it prefers to defend that rather than do something for the good of the country.
Your comments about people taking boating holidays are just ridiculous. We’re not talking here about curtailing the non-existent bonuses of some moderately wealthy people, we’re talking about curbing the greed and recklessness of a small number of people in the City.
Why is it that it is only right wingers who can’t see the metaphor?
Metaphors are too much for neo-libs who can’t see past the readies! meaning , for them, stops there!
Do you do stand up? No seriously!! You have a talent for it with jokes like that! 🙂
I don’t see you in a inflatable.
Your problem
Not mine
What is wrong with someone owning a yacht?
(I don’t even own an inflatable kayak, myself.)
They have to be designed and built and crewed, all of which provides work for others.
It’s how they come to own the yachts that’s the problem
Please open your eyes
Yes that’s it…………Anyone who has a yacht is evil!….It’s so obvious, they must be tax avoiders or exploiters, perhaps evil foreigners.
Just not possible for someone to be successful (like JK Rowling) and have millions to spend on a yacht. They should be banned because not everyone can have one….
Welcome to the politics of envy!…..Just how do you know that owning a yacht is an automatic social failure?
Oh dear
Metaphor is really beyond you, isn’t it?
It’s worth several of the commentors having another look at the picture and headline you use at the head of your blog. It says ‘Superyacht makers bouyant.’
Your blog title might refer to yachts (superyachts and have nots doesn’t have the same ring, does it) but it’s pretty clear that we are not talking about any old type of yacht, or yacht owner here. These are yachts only a select – and very rich – few can afford to own. Consequently, association with the 1% is entirely appropriate.
Indeed
But neoliberal argument is not based on facts
Or even evidence
In fact there is no such thing as neoliberal argument
There is just a demand for acquiesence
“Welcome to the politics of envy!”
Yawn! Oh please….can we have some original lines. please? That was the pathetic throwaway line tossed at anyone who dared say things might be a tiny bit unequal.
Pathetic in Thatcuer’s fay….even more pathetic now!
I don’t understand the furore over the challenge to the banker’s bonus cap. Higher bonuses = more tax paid on them. Isn’t that a good thing?
You clearly have no idea at all about the impact of inequality
That’s sad
Go and read The Spirit Level
And open your eyes to the real world all around you
Where do you think the money will go if it’s capped? … To the shareholders. So how does capping it assist equality? People pay less tax on dividends than they do in income: if we tax the money as income the public sees more of it. Please don’t make assumptions about people, you know nothing about me whatsoever and it’s incredibly patronising.
It is interesting that you see this money as a profit distribution in the first instance. That shows you believe in corporate capture, by implication. I happen to share the view
Secondly, you assume not paying will not change behaviour. I hope it will. I hope some activity may cease. I even hope some trade will stop. So do the U. Much of it is harmful and high risk – and that risk is not borne by the shareholders.
So I actually hope there is simply no payment
And society will benefit from the lower risk, reduced inequality, the transfer of effort to productive use and much, much more
And yes; I do make presumptions about people. So do you. Very obviously, based on what you said. So please don’t apply dual standards: one rule for you and aponther for me. Or you will confirm my opinion
If we start to control the income the Bankers get. It wont stop there, it will go onto other industries. Where as the Bankers, who do a lot of work for the UK, including paying tax. They will move to Singapore or Hong Kong. HK has an income tax rate of 16% now that is pleasure.
The UK has never been a country where you get something for nothing. Work hard you get a good income and possibly a nice lifestyle. Not all bankers are sitting in Lymington marina drinking Pimms or G&Ts.
I think you will find many of the bankers affected by this have the same upbringing as the people you are pretending to support.
First of all bankers won’t move
They are in London because of a) its time zone b) the fact is that banks need to be next to banks to trade (yes, even in the internet age: they need the pool of people with expertise to swap between them – they simply can’t exist and make adequate profit in isolation – which is why no move out of London is likely)
Second I’m demanding regulation to protect the country – not something for nothing – which is what bankers got in the 2009 bail out. I really don’t want to do that again. Why do you?
Third – I am not criticising people. I am criticising systems
That old contention that banks will not move out of London is flatly contradicted by basic facts. Since 2008, banking employment in London has fallen by 30%, but it has remained flat in New York. The 2007/08 bonus pools in London and New York were roughly equivalent at $12-15 billion. For 2012, bonuses in New York were just shy of $20 billion, versus ‘only’ $3 billion in London. Meanwhile, both employment and compensation in Asia have grown by more than 30% on a cumulative basis during the period.
We are not talking about a few people taking their kids out of school, etc. There is a powerful trend of global financial institutions, especially US investment banking firms which dominate the industry, to divert investment away form London either to New York or Asia.
Your comments reflect a perfectly respectable political opinion that many on the left seem to take. I just hope that you have a solution to make up for the billions in bonuses (and taxes thereon) that are no longer paid in the UK but in Connecticut or Singapore.
Data from reliable sources please
And then reconcile with what Barclays is doing, announced today, for example
No, I don’t believe you
But I hope you’re right because we cannot afford to house all the banks we did in the UK
Have you noticed what over dependence on banking is doing to Jersey?
It’s dragging us down too
The data for Wall Street is from the New York State comptroller. Bonuses for the fiscal year 2012 were $20 billion, down from $22 billion in the fiscal year 2007. Employment is down 10%.
The data for London is from the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR). Bonuses for 2012 were £1.6 billion, down from £10.6 billion in 2007-08. Headcount has dropped by 30%.
Barclays is actually a good example of corporate re-location: since 2007, the firm has significantly downsized its operations in London, while expanding dramatically in the US both organically and through acquisitions.
You are missing also one critical factor: the UK is not housing any of the major bonus-paying banks (except Barclays, which actually pays most of its bonuses to US-based staff). In fact, UK banks account for at most a quarter of investment banking bonuses paid in London. About half is paid by US-based firms, and another quarter by Swiss, EU and Japanese institutions. These are banks which, like Barclays, never received a Dollar (or Pound) of UK taxpayers’ support.
You miss the point
Staff losses in London relate to losses in London
And US banks etc received support – just not here directly
This is a wholly selective view that is not credible
But as I said anyway: I actively seek this decline in employment in the City. It gives the rest of the UK hope, not least by reducing our exchange rate. More would help
The yachts and the have nots
Treasures they got
For the labours and toil
Please don’t spoil
Its simple as “abc”
Why can’t you see.
[rhyme and metaphor]
Amused
“f we start to control the income the Bankers get. It wont stop there, it will go onto other industries. Where as the Bankers, who do a lot of work for the UK, including paying tax. They will move to Singapore or Hong Kong. HK has an income tax rate of 16% now that is pleasure.
The UK has never been a country where you get something for nothing. Work hard you get a good income and possibly a nice lifestyle. Not all bankers are sitting in Lymington marina drinking Pimms or G&Ts.
I think you will find many of the bankers affected by this have the same upbringing as the people you are pretending to support.”
Amazing how many people you get that are apologists for obscene profit, isn’t it? Does there need to be a reminder here that, without the support of the taxpayers and the state, there probably wouldn’t be a banking system, let alone one paying huge bonuses for little effort and adding absolutely nothing in genuine productive wealth to this country.
The city of London banks are parasites that tale far more out than they put in. Why there has not been a demand for complete nationalisation of the banks, I do not know!
–
Why should someone be rewarded so absurdly for wealth extraction rather than real wealth creation activities?
The sooner we have a modern global Glass Steagall Act the better. The banks need to be broken up as they are not fit for purpose. We a need a return to productive capitalism rather than faux version offered by the banks.
As for those that fail to grasp the meaning of the phrase “have yachts and have nots” you really do need to start wise up…
By the way the “politics of envy” retort should be consigned to the dustbin of history along with “trickle down”, both have been used by the 1% as a cover for unjustified self enrichment.
Funny, that mention of JK Rowling.
““You have a moral responsibility when you’ve been given far more than you need, to do wise things with it and give intelligently” (JK Rowling)
http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/arts-culture/blogs/jk-rowlings-charity-giving-knocks-her-off-forbes-billionaires-list
So..back to bankers and chancellors:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-26/cyprus-style-wealth-confiscation-starting-all-over-world
Wonder if that includes yachts ?
I noted earlier that Iceland is now not going to return investment money over 100K….my local council had millions invested there….