Bankers are not cost efficient...

lemonjelly

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/12/11/bankers-cost-each-one-of-us-8-40-for-every-1-they-produce-study-shows-115875-23626708/

One for the bashers.

However, seriously calls into question the merit in protecting the city of london, as mr cameron declined to actually answer any questions yesterday.

If they are this inefficient, were they worth bailing out? Are we going to lose a hell of a lot more than originally suggested?

Generali

Bailing out companies in a Capitalist world makes as much sense as screwing for virginity (to misquote many an old hippy). That includes banks and their creditors (below a limit that will allow people to continue to eat, pay bills etc.

CLAPTON

if we weren't starting from here then the article may have made sense; but given we are where we are it's not must use.

lemonjelly

Actually I think there is a bigger issue here.
The finance sector was undoubtedly the cause of the economic crisis by engaging in risky trading activities. However, their actions since have not been ones which would/should re-instate trust into the finance sector. I think that this has resulted in a lot of the percieved "banker bashing" that has occurred.

In example, Paulson announced the US government needed to invest $700bn to buy up toxic debts. This bailout was eventually agreed (after a clause allowing a tax cut was inserted). A few months later, Paulson announced that the money had been spent, with none of it going on toxic debt buying. No explanation was given, or has been given since. Within a couple of weeks of Paulsons announcement, numerous major banks announced massive bonus payments to high ranking managers.

The sector hasn't given the impression of any humbleness. In the UK, executive pay is defended with all sorts of bluster & even aggression.

To me, the finance sector isn't helping itself at all. Nothing has been done by either the sector or government to ensure nothing similar happens again (despite all parties campaigning on it as an issue). It is probably too late now, & the current government won't do anything. The sector clearly has no intention of doing anything - its actions suggest the opposite.

So Joe public are going to ask why we should trust them?

PasturesNew

lemonjelly wrote: »

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/12/11/bankers-cost-each-one-of-us-8-40-for-every-1-they-produce-study-shows-115875-23626708/

One for the bashers.

However, seriously calls into question the merit in protecting the city of london, as mr cameron declined to actually answer any questions yesterday.

If they are this inefficient, were they worth bailing out? Are we going to lose a hell of a lot more than originally suggested?

People say if you work hard, you get on. Bankers will have you believe that they are magnificent because they work/worked harder than you .... and if only you'd pulled your finger out of your butt you could be as successful as them.

I must admit, it must take a LOT of work to be THAT inefficient/costly and, well, useless.

I applaud the bankers, for showing us that it is possible to be utterly cr4p at your job and still become rich.... while still believing they are God and making us think we're rubbish for not working as hard as them.

chewmylegoff

I've said all along that hospital cleaners are the real wealth creators! :rolleyes:

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

Bailing out companies in a Capitalist world makes as much sense as screwing for virginity (to misquote many an old hippy). That includes banks and their creditors (below a limit that will allow people to continue to eat, pay bills etc.

UK had a defence company most people will have heard of; Ferrantis.

It was a profitable business, but one which made a huge mistake. It bought a US defense outfit in the late 80s, one which turned out to be involved in illegal arms sales (the owner of ISC was later found guilty in a US court).

The damage had been done, and Ferranti went bankrupt a few years later.

In 2008 RBS bought a large overseas company, ABN Amro. It transpired that ABN had been involved in sub-prime US business and RBS suffered significant losses due to ABN before being bailed out by the tax payer.

The bits of Ferranti after its collapse which were profitable were bought by other defence companies. They now make money.

RBS may not show a profit for the state majority shareholder.


Spot the difference ?

lemonjelly

chewmylegoff wrote: »

I've said all along that hospital cleaners are the real wealth creators! :rolleyes:

But the report suggests they're not creating wealth?

kabayiri

PasturesNew wrote: »

People say if you work hard, you get on. Bankers will have you believe that they are magnificent because they work/worked harder than you .... and if only you'd pulled your finger out of your butt you could be as successful as them.
...

I blame the Egyptians, for it was they who invented the Pyramid. Admittedly, they saw it as some sort of burial chamber and not a flawed sales scheme.

It is an economic impossibility for everyone in the UK to work hard, become knowledgeable in high finance, and achieve what a small number of investment bankers achieve.

There isn't enough accommodation in London, nevermind the fact we could not pay them all the same income levels.

Yet people spread this message as though it is a religion.

Business works because it is able to find a lot of 'grunts' doing all the dogsbody stuff so that a number of privileged and savvy individuals up the ladder can cream off the reward. We shouldn't pretend otherwise.

chewmylegoff

The article suggests that a hospital cleaner paid £6 an hour is contributing £60 an hour to the economy...

It's like the ramblings of a small Communist child.

julieq

Banking sector contributes £58B in tax, 11% of the total. Year in, year out.

If you don't think that's worth having because of a couple of Daily Mirror headlines, then good luck to you but you're not going to get much of an NHS if it goes. This bank bashing is insane, and it's getting increasingly hysterical.