Posts Tagged ‘Goldman-Sachs’

Euro-crisis is successfully pauperising European citizens. #Occupy #NHS #Unions

February 10, 2012

Fullermoney reported that the CEB had sold a load of Eurobonds ( Gov’t speak for IOU’s) at 0% to SIG (Spain Italy and Greece).

These immediately sold their own bonds at ~6% to the banks (e.g. Goldman-Sachs).

So banks were effectively getting German backed IOU’s with SIG paying them interest at a high rate.

The only beneficiaries were the banks (e.g. Goldman-Sachs).

The losers (beside the German workers) were  the SIG electorate, who had to lose State assets, their own pension rights and chunks of state backed services, such as Health and Education, just to pay the interest on these loans.

Now the B.o.E. has announced £50 billion of Quantitative Easing (total now £325 billion), which essentially means that the Government has devalued the Pound again.

This acts against the UK people in three ways.

First their spending power is reduced, as the pound buys less.

Second the bank  interest rate is kept low, so pension funds actually lose value.

This occurs because the banks (e.g. Goldman-Sachs) hold the pension funds and charge a service fee for doing so.

Meantime, a doubling of iniquity, they are using those funds to buy bonds etc., knowing that if the bonds (remember they are actually I.O.U’s) aren’t honoured. then it’s not their money that is lost, it’s the pensioners money.

Third, The banks (e.g. Goldman-Sachs) hand over assets to cover this gift.

As these assets are undoubtedly SIG bonds, which could default, the Gov’t has effectively bought the equivalent of “sub-prime mortgages” with our money, which is based on our own bonds, for which we have had wholesale cuts in State assets, our own pension rights and chunks of state backed services, such as Health and Education.

All those who have been sacked from such services, can take comfort that they have enriched bankers.

In short, it seems that the Euro crisis is designed to provide a money-go-round, which at each stage is used as a mechanism to pauperise European citizens for the benefit of the Capitalists, who back the banks.

That’s presumably why they need such big bonuses for their troops. It’s to ease the consciences of those who understand what they are doing.




Bonuses:@UKLabour @Ed-Miliband @Labourparty. You don’t give a waitress a 100% tip

February 7, 2012

Some people are asking where all the agitation is getting us.

The answer is not far but politicians are aware of our concerns and are trying to appear sympathetic, without upsetting their sponsors.

Every time the BBC announces some concession, it’s always coupled with a partial rebuttal from an authorative representative from The City etc.

Their latest Mantra is that the UK is being seen as anti-business, as though asking that they pay their fair share of taxes and take only a fair share of the Nation’s life-blood was somehow unfair to leeches.

Nobody has any problem with businesses making money out of providing a service. That’s what a worker does. He provides a service and earns an agreed wage. What we ask is that everyone gets a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.

The big problem at the moment is that the Government is showing a bias towards an excessive un-earned wage for businesses and a parsimonious reward for their front-line employees.

Later today, Labour politicians will make a token opposition to bonus payments, for top management. So far the only concession has been one public employees (Hester) declining his bonus, while the allegedly privately financed executives of Network Rail have insisted on keeping their bonuses (wouldn’t want to set a precedent) but magmanimously declaring that they will use it to make level crossinggs safer. This almost a case of hypocrisy, in view of their prolonged legal defence in their recent losing case of negligence, where Top management ignored the warnings of their Frontline management. I expect that next year they will announce that they have made vast improvements to level crossings, due to their generosity, and will award themselves double bonuses. As they may well make a loss next year, the Taxpayer will be called on to make up the deficit, which will include those bonuses.

If politicians were genuinely sincere in wanting to create a fair Society and genuinely believed that we were all in it together, then they’d ensure that Goldman-Sachs etc didn’t get “Sweetheart deals, that Topman etc. couldn’t use blatantly obvious subterfuges to avoid taxes, that people, such as Tony Blair, paid more than £37,000 tax on a £12,000,000 income .

They’d end the excessive pay awards to companies that can’t fail (because the Taxpayer picks up any shortfall).

They’d acknowledge that no-one can earn salaries (with extra’s) that are more than most citizens can genuinely earn, in a lifetime.

They’d cap bonuses in private, as well as in public, concerns, at 10% of salary (tax anything over this).

————You don’t give a waitress a 100% tip as an incentive against the next time she serves your order, so why do that with an executive, especially, when he’s done the equivalent of sneeze on your meal.———————

If businesses really believe that paying a fair level of taxation means that they’d rather go elsewhere, then let them.

If Topshop wants to trade in this country then its owners etc. must pay taxes in this country on what they earn here.

I, for one, never believed the teacher, about to cane me, that it was for my own good.

Similarly, I do not believe politicians, who insist that I must accept their premise that State assets being given to private businesses, as effective monopolies, is in my own interest.

I say let them give the previously State-owned assets back, if they can’t run them profitably AND effectively.

We’ll find people, who’ll do it for a reasonable wage.


#occupy Even Capitalists are getting concerned about the actions of banks

January 28, 2012

From Fullermoney:

MF Global: Uncertain futures – This is a good article (may require subscription registration) on a sorry and damaging saga, written by Hal Weitzman and Gregory Meyer for the Financial Times. Here is the opening:

  Since MF Global filed for bankruptcy on October 31 and revealed that customer money was missing, attention has been focused on Jon Corzine, the firm’s former chief executive. Once a Wall Street “master of the universe”, with a career including stints as head of Goldman Sachs, a US senator and governor of New Jersey, Mr Corzine is now one of the most reviled figures in finance.

There has also been intense scrutiny of CME Group, America’s biggest futures exchange operator and the industry body responsible for regulating MF Global’s commodities business. Some customers are angry at what they say was a lapse in oversight; others say a for-profit entity should not be regulating its own customers. CME responds that no watchdog can guarantee against fraud.

 But the MF Global scandal is more than just a question of tarnished reputations. It has had a profound effect on the entire financial industry. The realisation that customers could lose money kept in segregated accounts separate from the firm’s own money – thought by many to be as safe as a bank – has severely damaged confidence in the 163-year-old US futures market. Before the financial crisis, futures were among the fastest-growing of all exchange-traded products.

“This is unprecedented. It’s the single biggest blow the industry has ever had to its business and credibility,” says a former senior CME executive. “It has forced us to ask the question: is the model of the futures industry so flawed that it can never be the same again?”

 Such soul-searching is rare for a business that in the past 30 years has transformed itself from an agricultural backwater. Futures markets – which enable producers such as manufacturers to fix for the longer term the prices at which they buy or sell rather than expose themselves to the risk of volatility on the daily spot markets – were once seen chiefly as a system of crop insurance for farmers. Today investors trade agreements to buy and sell in the future anything from oil to financial products.

My view – The scandal of MF Global has less to do with regulatory problems than a cavalier recklessness on the part of the firm’s management. Jon Corzine, of all people should have known better. Many observers felt that he was treated deferentially by former colleagues during the Congressional committee hearings examining what went wrong at MF Global.   There should be a proper trial and if found guilty, Mr Corzine and others responsible should receive sufficient fines and jail sentences to serve as a deterrent to others who might be tempted to play fast and loose with their fiduciary responsibilities, not least clients’ money.

The targets of #Occupy

December 22, 2011

Wealth isn’t dirty (I’d wouldn’t mind a bit more myself), neither is Capitalism, as a principle, nor is power.

The problem is the morality of those withwealth and Power.

Our last Labour Government  was full of people who started out as very moral people but ended up as corrupted politicians sucking on the teat of the likes of Murdoch.

Our present Tory Gov’t seems to be funded by highly dubious concerns, related to The City of London.

The City provides 10% of our GDP and probably thinks it owns the UK and its citizens, in the same way that Kim Jong-il actually owned North Korea.

Our Tax officials, presumably supported by their political masters, have cut sweetheart deals (i.e. effectively let off their tax paymernts) with these people e.g. Goldman-Sachs, who are sited on Paternoster Square, home of the City of London and the target of Occupylsx.