| The Comments |
I said Trump has the potential for dictatorship I did not say he would suceed.
You told us to be concerned about it! Why then should we be worried?
This message was last edited by tteedd on 20/01/2017.
2
Like
|
Mickeyfinn,
To generalise yet again ( pattern forming here) and not recognise the need for effective regulation (I.e. intellectually discriminate between where it's necessary and where it's a hindrance) where abuse proliferates and impacts member state(s) economies whether directly or indirectly, which leads to mistrust, disharmony and lack of faith in those responsible for governance, only reinforces Brexiteers concerns.
0
Like
|
Brexiteers should be concerned!
Buy American
Hire American
America first.
Good luck with that trade deal. Bwahahahaha
1
Like
|
Perrypower1
Trump said America first.
T May said Great Britain first. So l really don't see where you are coming from is that not the way it should be.
This message was last edited by windtalker on 20/01/2017.
4
Like
|
So Trump says America first and they all cheer.
May says Britain first and everyone says we should be influencing what happens in Europe not walking away.
Perhaps citizens and maybe some politiciians are beginning to realise that globalisation is not necessarily good for jobs at home.
3
Like
|
Trump says America first and gets three cheers.
Theresa says UK first and gets three jeers.
Such is stupidity.
_______________________
IF YOU WISH TO QUOTE ANY OF MY POSTS PLEASE DO SO IN THEIR ENTIRETY AND NOT JUST A FEW SELECTED WORDS TOTALLY OUT OF CONTEXT.
THANK YOU.
4
Like
|
Trump missed something as he didn't have time to fit it into his speech
"America first, UK second, EUSSR last".........
0
Like
|
There is a further irony to consider here when you note the following,...
"Coupled with discussions from Davos indicating Trump’s incoming administration will ease regulation on financiers the Greenback was consequently the day's leader of the pack gaining a half-cent against sterling."
Easing the regulation on financiers???.... If ever there was a need for tight regulation it's required for financiers, especially following the non compliance within that industry that led to the recession and the manipulative disgraceful immoral methods to design complex "products" to hide a multitude of risks that were bound to fail , and then in full knowledge subsequently bet on the system to fail.
And who picked up the tab?....Yes innocent citizens that bailed out the financial institutions that failed to adequately regulate their financiers, for which we are all still paying the price, in terms of member state debts ( some more affected than others).
You couldn't write this script I'm afraid!
But surely as citizens we should all remain sufficiently aware, learn from past mistakes, and never be afraid to recognise uncomfortable realities and demand regulation to prevent a repeat of abusive malpractice that can cause mayhem on such a global scale.
But the sad reality is that insufficiently regulated financial institutions are still wreaking havoc in Spain...But that's for another thread.
This message was last edited by ads on 20/01/2017.
3
Like
|
Not wrong Ads, diabolical financial regulation from 2004 onwards certainly did contribute to the corruption of US financial institutions and their rape and pillage of US citizens.
You could write the script, its called "The Big Short" and is fascinating reading and will happen again.
But the vote went against Hilary largely because of her ties to Wall Street, now Donald is suggesting, isolation and protectionism for the US but lighter regulation for banks.
He then complains about previous US politicians becoming fat cats, but appoints billionaires to his cabinet.
You are right Americans almost deserve to be ripped off because of their belief in "The Dream".
More violent protests against Donald than Teresa currently.
I am not sure your observation of corrupt banks is actually another thread, I think the problems with banks in Germany, Italy and Spain for starters could well be a major problem for EU citizens, sadly the UK banks also own European bonds so will get dragged in, despite Brexit. Money has been devalued by Central Banks for too long now, hence the rise in value in assets.
1
Like
|
Interesting development?
World’s largest asset manager recruits former UK chancellor….
George Osborne to join BlackRock as adviser. He won't be stepping down from Parliament.
The former Chancellor joins the same firm as his former chief economic adviser.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/george-osborne-blackrock-investments-city-job-part-time-mp-200000-plus_uk_58823345e4b0b8867de7d0e4
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlackRock
Blackrock has been called the world's largest shadow bank.
"Shadow banking, as usually defined, comprises a diverse set of institutions and markets that, collectively, carry out traditional banking functions — but do so outside, or in ways only loosely linked to, the traditional system of regulated depository institutions. Examples of important components of the shadow banking system include securitization vehicles, asset-backed commercial paper [ABCP] conduits, money market funds, markets for repurchase agreements, investment banks, and mortgage companies"
Note: Shadow banking has grown in importance to rival traditional depository banking, and was a primary factor in the subprime mortgage crisis of 2007-2008 and the global recession that followed. Valerio Lemma, an associate professor of Banking Law who consults on regulatory compliance, argues that the lack of regulatory supervision of the shadow banking system is a market failure.
Just wondering what to make of the above and the need for adequate Banking regulation to protect the best interests of UK and EU citizens alike?
P.S. Mickeyfinn, you observed "It's about your own individual moral compass in the end not heavy handed big brother policing by governments. ". Looking at the wider perspective, do you really think that Banks have demonstrated a moral compass, that we can trust them without an effective regulatory Banking body in place to administer regulatory contraints to disincentivise abuse that so badly impact innocent citizens?
Just look at the following just as one small example, let alone the ongoing and lengthy legal challenges relating to Bank Guarantees, mortgage floor clauses, compulsory insurance cover and excessive costs, non payment of community fees, failing to register/update land registry details etc... all sadly legal challenges required after the abusive event. And this is small fry compared to the global risks that we have ALL been compromised by to date.
https://www.eyeonspain.com/blogs/spainnews/16943/five-ex-managers-of-novacaixagalicia-bank-jailed-for-giving-themselves-millions-in-early-retirement-pay-offs.aspx
Far greater attention needs to be focused on effective Banking regulation and adequate disincentives to prevent abusive manipulation/malpractice/corruption across Europe, if trust is to be restored. Why have the EU bureaucrats as part of their overseeing and governance been so lax, turning blind eyes in this regard (just as they have been with regard to adherence to the rule of law i.e. adherence to timely justice and enforcement)?
This message was last edited by ads on 21/01/2017.
This message was last edited by ads on 21/01/2017.
1
Like
|
All Osborne will be is a door opener, they would have done far better by recruiting Blair, who is a fully paid up member of the duplicitous lying little s***s society.
_______________________
IF YOU WISH TO QUOTE ANY OF MY POSTS PLEASE DO SO IN THEIR ENTIRETY AND NOT JUST A FEW SELECTED WORDS TOTALLY OUT OF CONTEXT.
THANK YOU.
2
Like
|
One area that needs clamping down on is sitting MP's and their other jobs, directorships, advisors, board membership etc.
IMO they should be 100% focussed on what they were elected to do and reperesent their constituents as part of parliament and have no other role outside or parlaiment
_______________________
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge”
2
Like
|
Now that all eyes are on Theresa May and Brexit, is this an ideal opportunity to at least make a stab at cleaning up, responding to the many mistakes made by her predecessor, establishing more effective mechanisms re regulatory structures (where required and of economic benefit) and work towards identifying the need to regain trust in the Banking industry which is so important to the British economy? And yes Tadd to review the rules, if required, relating to MP's financial interests outside of their constituency responsibilities with a view to adequately addressing the many areas relating to conflict of interests, etc
But also to continue to emphasise the opportunity to work together with the EU re trade agreements, focus on mutually beneficial ways forward, and in so doing indirectly influence change and give hope to EU citizens who have been so badly compromised during this last decade, given it is in all of our interests for a mutually beneficial outcome?
One thing is for sure, the latest move by George Osborne will only accentuate citizens' concerns re MP's and Govt officials being sufficiently detached from the Banking industry to act in the best interests of citizens.... unless it can be proved that this is in some way influential (from within the Banking industry) to developing marketing strategies to incentivise the positive benefits that would accrue from greater Banking regulatory controls with effective inbuilt compliance mechanisms (i.e. tap into consumers growing desire for reassurance in the form of ethical business practice... not rhetoric I hasten to add).
This message was last edited by ads on 21/01/2017.
This message was last edited by ads on 21/01/2017.
1
Like
|
'One area that needs clamping down on is sitting MP's and their other jobs, directorships, advisors, board membership etc.
IMO they should be 100% focussed on what they were elected to do and reperesent their constituents as part of parliament and have no other role outside or parlaiment'
No. It is entirely a good thing that MP's have experience outside parliament. This can be obtained before becoming an MP or while in office. It is up to their constituents to decide if they are doing the job properly and vote appropriately at the next election.
What we don't need is lots of professional MP's who have no experience of the real world.
0
Like
|
|
£75k p/a plus legitimate expenses isn't a kings ransom, the uncertainty of election results makes the job security aspect very volatile, plus the boredom of not having your family and friends around wouldn't make it a winner for me. There are plenty of better paid, more secure and better pensioned public sector jobs, head teachers of comprehensive schools on sink council estates can earn £150K p/a.
_______________________
IF YOU WISH TO QUOTE ANY OF MY POSTS PLEASE DO SO IN THEIR ENTIRETY AND NOT JUST A FEW SELECTED WORDS TOTALLY OUT OF CONTEXT.
THANK YOU.
0
Like
|
Destry
They probably could not afford Blair at the rates he charged.
£75k for Boy George is not to be sniffed out when it's probably a one day a week role.
Lets have some context here.
1
Like
|
Hugh
I was talking about MP's salaries.
_______________________
IF YOU WISH TO QUOTE ANY OF MY POSTS PLEASE DO SO IN THEIR ENTIRETY AND NOT JUST A FEW SELECTED WORDS TOTALLY OUT OF CONTEXT.
THANK YOU.
0
Like
|
tteed
don't disagree with most of what you post but whilst in office their particiaption in industy and / or business should be very limited if not put on hold.
_______________________
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge”
1
Like
|
Not sure Tadd
All conflicts of interest should be disclosed and if they become ministers and hold posts outside parliament that clash then they should resign them. But otherwise it should be up to them. If their constituents feel that they are not doing the job properly then they know what to do.
Years ago I had a man for my MP a man who did not atttend parliament for a whole session. Despite wishing his party well I voted for another party. I would like to see the local press giving full details of their local MP's attendance, voting and outside interests. Unlike the National press the local press is usually to servile and just print things like 'Our MP Mx Xxxx attended the local school fete' or 'Our MP campaigns for a new hospital'. I don't think I have ever seen anything like 'Your MP has only attended parliament once in the past month' or 'Our MP claimed £X in expenses, do you think he was justified?'.
At least the voters can get rid of them if they really want to, unlike the EU comissioners and council of ministers. I would just like to see the useless ones weeded out more often.
2
Like
|