Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

London House Prices Fall, Prompting Economic Slow


Recommended Posts

Dear Bored,

Does 'other professions' just mean bankers? No, of course not. I already said my problem is with the banking profession (did you notice? :) ), but that does not mean I automatically have a problem with ALL professions apart from engineering. To suggest this is disingenious. Again you are using a logical fallacy:

Marko does not like banking

Banking is a profession

Therefore Marko does not like professions.

This is NOT an argument!!!!

"So that my money is spent via the government, without me being asked, on insuring your fireworks. Engineers can destroy wealth as easily as bankers can magic it up. Nevertheless private capital and insurance, you will find, are engaged in all aspects of your industry. How do you think the payload got to the top of the rocket?"

I agree, of course private capital and insurance are involved...I already said I don't have any problem AT ALL with capital allocation and underwriting - I am not a bloody Trotskyite! I do have a problem when it is perverted through FRB so that 'capital' is invented out of nothing! This is a preposterous situation! It is fraud, and inflationary, and morally reprehensible! TELL ME AND EVERYONE ELSE READING THIS WHY I AM WRONG.

And yes the city harms people when it raises it's denizens up above everyone else through FRAUD (AKA FRB). You admit so yourself in your final sentence when you acknowledge that the city makes money from thin air:

"rather clever I'd say" - yes, so is running a counterfeiting operation...does that make it alright!?!

Fractional Reserve Banking is FRAUD. It is functionally equivalent to counterfeiting. It is legalised theft, pure and simple, and should be abhorent to any sane person who believes in a liberal society and property rights (as I do). Again I am challenging ANY of you to tell me why it is not. If you cannot (and I am not holding my breath) then you will have to reach the same conclusion (unless you start relying on logical fallacies again) that I have been expounding for the last 20 or so posts, that fractional reserve banking, even without the extra greed and malpractise that goes on, is an immoral profession.

Come on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Dear Scooter,

"you sound like a thoroughly unhappy guy, tormented by jealousy and disatisfaction with your own choices"

AGAIN you have resorted to Ad Hominem...is this some kind of hobby with you people?!! Ad Hominem is a FALLACY, and is NOT A VALID ARGUMENTATIVE TOOL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Do not worry about me I am not tormented...like I said I enjoy my job, although I am a bit unhappy about not being able to afford a house! :(

Anyway, you are right, I should not lump the insurance industry in with the bankers completely...I completely understand that insurance is a vital part of the economy as it involves the spreading of risk - absolutely crucial I agree. And don't worry I realise that intangible products are subject to the same market constraints and logic as tangible assets. Although I have serious reservations about the integrity of some of the operators at Lloyds (the names scandal over asbestos claims for example) I will leave the insurance industry out of this. My target is the banks.

by the way, for those interested in what happened at Lloyds (those paragons of virtue) here is a brief summary :

http://www.truthaboutlloyds.com/fraud/timeline.html  :blink:

Anyway, could you tell me Scooter, do the underwriters at Lloyds have enough capital to fully honour all the outstanding claims against them? If so, great, if not, then isn't offering insurance that is not fully backed a bit like earning money on capital that does not exist? Let me know.

Scooter, are YOU going to be the one to tell me why fractional reserve banking is different to counterfeiting? I think you are! Come on! :D

Who are "you people" that I am supposed to be one of? I am not a number etc.

I am glad you are not tormented.

Yes, there are some serious questions about some past practices in Lloyds but more to do with how some people for drawn into providing capital when it was inappropriate for them and also possibly being used to bail out the reinsurance spiral on some syndicates. Asbestos and pollution was more about Lloyds being screwed by the US courts using ancient insurance policies to pay claims for what were, at the time of underwriting, standard manufacturing industry practices (eg unrestrained dumping of byproducts in rivers/landfills) . The US needed someone to pay for cleanup/industrial disease and that meant current syndicates who had inherited old synidcates with policies assumed to be long expired.

Can we honour all the claims? If every policy had a claim, no, as there is no more unlimited liability, largely because of the issues you raised regarding private capital (names) and even if we did, you would bankrupt everyone before the claims were all paid. But the idea of every policy having a claim is no more likely than every single loan a bank makes having a default. There is very ample money to pay even very severe and unusual loss frequency/amounts vis WTC, 4 large hurricanes last year, large aircraft losses occasionally. Loss trends are very closely monitored as well as so called Realistic Disaster Scenarios (RDS) most likely seen only in Hollywood disaster films, so there is massive margin for error on the downside.

Can we honour all of the current outstandings meaning current known claims against Lloyds insurers as opposed to policies issued? Yes, without a doubt.

Fractional reserve banking? Only heard of it yesterday so not a clue.

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Scooter,

To understand Fractional Reserve Banking maybe you can read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

If the bank's reserve ratio is 10% (i.e. they only keep 10% of their deposits and notes as reserves to satisfy demands for withdrawals) it can LITERALLY CREATE 10 times its reserves of legal tender in notes and demand deposits that are used as money.

Money is made from nothing. It is functionally equivalent to counterfeiting. The result? Banks create money that is ALL THEIR OWN from nothing! Worse still, the whole practice is inflationary because it pumps money into the economy....some people seem to argue that this is a good thing, though I cannot for the life of me see why, seeing as this money belongs to the BANK. Consequently, the fraction of the total money supply that is held by the banks is increased at the expense of those people in the productive economy who actually created the wealth: IT IS THEFT.

The whole thing is in principal very simple, which is why I find it so bloody annoying that people don't see this thing that is right there in front of them and shut the whole racket down!

Leaving aside the names scandal (I will leave others to make their mind up about that), if Lloyds do not have sufficient capital to fully honour ALL claims held against it, then as far as I can see Lloyds is partaking in a form of FRB.

Naughty!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Marko,

I'd like to take you back to your original post:

I f**king hate Bloomberg, bankers and all the associated money-sh1ts that parasitically feed off the rest of us!!!  These pricks should be dragged into the street, whipped and then re-employed as kitchen porters or binmen. That would be a fine day! 

Get a REAL job ar5eholes!

Hardly the reasoned critique of a narrow profession (bankers) that you are now trying to imply. It wasn't until post #16 that you introduced your concept of fractional banking, whatever that is.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain your alternative proposals for the world economic order or, to narrow the task down to a manageable one, what you would replace the City of London with?

Incidentally I am not aware that Bloombergs is a bank.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Duke,

Yes, obviously the difference is that one is legal....good grief I did know THAT! ;) that is my point, because counterfeiting and FRB are functional identical, why does society tolerate one but not the other? Both are fraudulent and should be stopped.

You don't seem to understand fractional reserve banking...the lender (banker) is not borrowing the money from someone else....he is literally inventing the money from thin air using fractional-reserve loans.

And as for "lenders are taking the risk of losing whatever assets they have in lending the money out" - this risk-premium is captured in the interest charged on the loan, and it is certainly not a justification for FRB! If a bank lends to a risky party, they increase the interest rate on the loan...THAT is their reward for risk, NOT MAKING MONEY OUT OF THIN AIR.

I am afraid you will have to do better than that.

Try going to a counterfeiter and asking for your money back.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Marko,

I'd like to take you back to your original post:

Hardly the reasoned critique of a narrow profession (bankers) that you are now trying to imply. It wasn't until post #16 that you introduced your concept of fractional banking, whatever that is.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain your alternative proposals for the world economic order or, to narrow the task down to a manageable one, what you would replace the City of London with?

Incidentally I am not aware that Bloombergs is a bank.

Dear Bored,

My original post was predicated on the fact that modern banking is based on fractional reserves and therefore inherently immoral - I only started to explicitly mention FRB when people started to demand that I qualify my distaste for the banking industry. And I don't like Bloomberg's because I find their obsession with money and short-term gains on the stock market distasteful in general.

The stock market is another thing I have issue with - maybe there should be some restrictions on the amount of trades that can occur within a set time period: basically, measures to strip as much of the short-term volatility out of the market as possible so that there is less room for short-term speculators to make money from volatility that does not represent any changes in underlying value - this is also a swindle. Although I fully recognise that this is not a simple problem to address.

Anyway, my very simple alternative proposal for the current system is (and you probably can guess!) GET RID of fractional reserve banking! Simple! That way, bankers can get on with their functional role in the wider economy of efficient capital allocation, without the freeby of getting to create capital for themselves from NOWHERE. I mean come on, FRB must rate as THE top scam of all time...it is dalylight robbery! THEFT by a smiling bloke in a suit!! Unbelievable!

I also think there are many other issues with the finance industry which require overhaul such as malpractice, fraud, cartel operation by high street banks etc., but of course there are rotten eggs in every industry and so to single these out is a bit beside the point. Although I would suggest that the type of personality that is attracted to banking is on aggregate more interested in money than in behaving fairly.

I think outlawing FRB and returning to let's say a gold standard or something would go a LONG WAY to cleaning up this rotten, rotten cyst on the side of the real economy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Scooter,

To understand Fractional Reserve Banking maybe you can read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

If the bank's reserve ratio is 10% (i.e. they only keep 10% of their deposits and notes as reserves to satisfy demands for withdrawals) it can LITERALLY CREATE 10 times its reserves of legal tender in notes and demand deposits that are used as money.

Money is made from nothing. It is functionally equivalent to counterfeiting. The result? Banks create money that is ALL THEIR OWN from nothing! Worse still, the whole practice is inflationary because it pumps money into the economy....some people seem to argue that this is a good thing, though I cannot for the life of me see why, seeing as this money belongs to the BANK. Consequently, the fraction of the total money supply that is held by the banks is increased at the expense of those people in the productive economy who actually created the wealth: IT IS THEFT.

The whole thing is in principal very simple, which is why I find it so bloody annoying that people don't see this thing that is right there in front of them and shut the whole racket down!

Leaving aside the names scandal (I will leave others to make their mind up about that), if Lloyds do not have sufficient capital to fully honour ALL claims held against it, then as far as I can see Lloyds is partaking in a form of FRB.

Naughty!

Thanks for the lesson on fractional reserve banking, not that I ever remember asking about it. :)

As for being able to pay claims, what I was trying to say was that since only a small percentage of insurance policies sold ever actually have claims, it would be preposterous to suggest that an insurer should hold reserves for the more or less impossible situation where they have to pay on every single policy or even most of them.

In practice, FSA and other regulators who determine capital adequacy ratios (assets to exposures) set levels which are anyway deliberately extreme and way beyond normal loss frequency and amounts. If these were increased to contemplate the unlikely scenario you suggest, what do you think would happen to your premiums? That is correct, so we would sit on piles of premium never used to actually pay claims, earning us interest. :D I am guessing you would fire off an angry email or three if your insurers did this...

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Try going to a counterfeiter and asking for your money back."

Eh? People don't lend money to counterfeiters....what is your point? What happens if everyone who has lent a bank money tries to get their money back at the same time? They find out what a central problem with FRB is, that's what happens.

Banks take money deposited with them and use it to create money from nothing through FRB...do you understand this or not? It is a simple concept, and one that cannot be logically refuted. I will spell it out again: FRB is functionally equivalent to counterfeiting. The only difference is the mechanism...counterfeiters just create money by printing it, whilst banks create money by lending capital they do not have. This is impossible to logically refute, which is why you have not done so.

Both processes increase the fraction of total money supply held by the perpetrator at the extent of everyone else in the economy - it is therefore functionally equivalent to theft, since the extra money the perpetrator has created can be used to buy goods and services. How do you think bankers get so f**king rich? Because they are doing such a good job!?! :blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the lesson on fractional reserve banking, not that I ever remember asking about it. :)

As for being able to pay claims, what I was trying to say was that since only a small percentage of insurance policies sold ever actually have claims, it would be preposterous to suggest that an insurer should hold reserves for the more or less impossible situation where they have to pay on every single policy or even most of them.

In practice, FSA and other regulators who determine capital adequacy ratios (assets to exposures) set  levels which are anyway deliberately extreme and way beyond normal loss frequency and amounts. If these were increased to contemplate the unlikely scenario you suggest, what do you think would happen to your premiums? That is correct, so we would sit on piles of premium never used to actually pay claims, earning us interest.  :D  I am guessing you would fire off an angry email or three if your insurers did this...

S.

Dear Scooter,

As far as my (now tired) brain can see, the insurance industry also does something similar to FRB if not enough money is held to honour all claims - although I am not entirely sure whether this is entirely equivalent to FTB ooops I mean FRB (have I wandered off topic!? :blink: )

All I know is that if you don't have an adequacy ratio of 1, then you are effectively trading (earning a return) on capital that does not exist...this may allow you to reduce premiums etc., but I still have trouble seeing why it is not naughty. However I am a bit unsure about this, so if you can convince me otherwise then go ahead! I am a bit fuzzy about this, and have not entirely convinced myself.

HOWEVER, I STILL definitely know that you bankers out there cannot challenge my claim that FRB is functionally identical to counterfeiting and therefore is a form of theft.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"Try going to a counterfeiter and asking for your money back."

Eh? People don't lend money to counterfeiters....what is your point? What happens if everyone who has lent a bank money tries to get their money back at the same time? They find out what a central problem with FRB is, that's what happens.

Banks take money deposited with them and use it to create money from nothing through FRB...do you understand this or not? It is a simple concept, and one that cannot be logically refuted. I will spell it out again: FRB is functionally equivalent to counterfeiting. The only difference is the mechanism...counterfeiters just create money by printing it, whilst banks create money by lending capital they do not have. This is impossible to logically refute, which is why you have not done so.

Both processes increase the fraction of total money supply held by the perpetrator at the extent of everyone else in the economy - it is therefore functionally equivalent to theft, since the extra money the perpetrator has created can be used to buy goods and services. How do you think bankers get so f**king rich? Because they are doing such a good job!?!  :blink:

How exactly does a counterfeiter increase the fraction of total money supply held by them? You don't need any money to literally make money.

If it's so easy to make money through banking, then why don't you? Then you can indulge your passions and change the world, inventing a banker-killer machine if you want. It's much much easier to be a counterfeiter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This could go on forever. :)

I am not convinced that the banking transactions that you describe are analogous to what we do.

The "manufacturing cost" of a book of insurance policies is the claims cost plus admin/staff/office expenses. We then try to build a profit margin on top of that into the premium paid by the buyer. We take the premium and sell risk transfer as a "product". If for example we sell 100 policies knowing historically/statistically only ten will have a claim in a normal year but we reserve for say 30 policies having claims in a freak year and we are sufficiently reserved and capitalised to pay 30 claims, then I do not see how we are making a profit on borrowed or non-existent capital. We sell risk transfer and we deliver to everybody who buys since risk is transferred to us regardless of whether the insured makes a claim or not and we can honour all claims made, assuming that the catstrophic worst case scenarios set for us by the regulators-30 claims out of 100 policies in the example above-are correct.

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites
How exactly does a counterfeiter increase the fraction of total money supply held by them? You don't need any money to literally make money.

If it's so easy to make money through banking, then why don't you? Then you can indulge your passions and change the world, inventing a banker-killer machine if you want. It's much much easier to be a counterfeiter.

Duke_of_moral_Hazzard,

For crying out loud!!!! Counterfeiter/bankers increase the fraction of the total money supply (i.e. all the money in the economy) held by them when they participate in counterfeiting/FRB.

If I am a counterfeiter with £1 in an economy with a total money supply of £100, I have 1% of the total money supply. If I then copy my £1 10 times, then I now have £11 in an economy with a total money supply of £110 - I now have 10% of the total money supply - I AM relatively richer than everyone else. Do you seriously not get this?

"If it's so easy to make money through banking, then why don't you? "

Oh for GOODNESS sake, WHAT KIND OF 'argument' (and I use the term very loosely now) is THIS!?????? I think the whole thing is immoral - THAT is why I don't do it. Crikey, you persist perpetually in bringing your 'argument' around to some aspect of my character...this is NOT VALID!!!! I could be a teabag, a horse or the Queen of f**king Sheeba - IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY BEARING ON THE ARGUMENT!

Please, please, PLEASE take the time to understand FRB and then explain to me why it is not functionaly equivalent to counterfeiting using a logical, reasoned argument that does not resort to Ad Hominem or other fallacy. OR accept that banking is fundamentally Immoral.

Link to post
Share on other sites
How exactly does a counterfeiter increase the fraction of total money supply held by them? You don't need any money to literally make money.

If it's so easy to make money through banking, then why don't you? Then you can indulge your passions and change the world, inventing a banker-killer machine if you want. It's much much easier to be a counterfeiter.

M made an analogy - i.e. An analogy is a comparison between two different things, in order to highlight some form of similarity -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

The "Fractional" part of FRB means that the banks cannot make unlimited amounts of money.. The fact that they are an integral part of society and have been doing this for a number of years means that (for example) about 90% of USDs were created by FRB..

Theory.. B)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_re..._banking_system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation

The 90% figure.. well you will just have to look that up :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
This could go on forever.  :)

I am not convinced that the banking transactions that you describe are analogous to what we do.

The "manufacturing cost" of a book of insurance policies is the claims cost plus admin/staff/office expenses. We then try to build a profit margin on top of that into the premium paid by the buyer. We take the premium and sell risk transfer as a "product". If for example we sell 100 policies knowing historically/statistically only ten will have a claim in a normal year but we reserve for say 30 policies having claims in a freak year and we are sufficiently reserved and capitalised to pay 30 claims, then I do not see how we are making a profit on borrowed or non-existent capital. We sell risk transfer and we deliver to everybody who buys since risk is transferred to us regardless of whether the insured makes a claim or not and we can honour all claims made, assuming that the catstrophic worst case scenarios set for us by the regulators-30 claims out of 100 policies in the example above-are correct.

S.

I think this sounds reasonable....I will gladly at this point (because I have a headache!) retract any claims that the underwriting industry is functionally equivalent to FRB - I am not fully convinced but I literally am having trouble focusing anymore!

Scooter thank you for being the only one on this forum who has offered a reasonable argument.

You are also right, this could go on forever, because everytime I ask for someone to explain why FRB is not theft, I get some ham-fisted response. :( All you bankers out there I am still waiting for the answer - if you cannot provide one, then accept the conclusion.....Banking is immoral.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this sounds reasonable....I will gladly at this point (because I have a headache!) retract any claims that the underwriting industry is functionally equivalent to FRB - I am not fully convinced but I literally am having trouble focusing anymore!

Scooter thank you for being the only one on this forum who has offered a reasonable argument.

You are also right, this could go on forever, because everytime I ask for someone to explain why FRB is not theft, I get some ham-fisted response. :(  All you bankers out there I am still waiting for the answer - if you cannot provide one, then accept the conclusion.....Banking is immoral.

Yes.. I agree with you..

Banking is in just as immoral as counterfeiting.. . with two provisos..

1. there are limits to their money creation...

2. they are regulated..

Plus wrt DOH

Counterfeiters do "take" (or lend) your money in that they in effect "swop" dud notes for legal tender..

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes.. I agree with you..

Banking is in just as immoral as counterfeiting.. . with two provisos..

1. there are limits to their money creation...

2. they are regulated..

Plus wrt DOH

Counterfeiters do "take" (or lend)  your money in that they in effect "swop" dud notes for legal tender..

Wuluf,

I broadly agree with you (thank God :D ), except that I would say that the difference between the dud notes used by a counterfeiters and the magic-money used by a bank is purely a result of one practice being illegal and the other legal. Fractional Reserve Banking should be illegal too!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Duke_of_moral_Hazzard,

For crying out loud!!!! Counterfeiter/bankers increase the fraction of the total money supply (i.e. all the money in the economy) held by them when they participate in counterfeiting/FRB.

If I am a counterfeiter with £1 in an economy with a total money supply of £100, I have 1% of the total money supply. If I then copy my £1 10 times, then I now have £11 in an economy with a total money supply of £110 - I now have 10% of the total money supply - I AM relatively richer than everyone else. Do you seriously not get this?

"If it's so easy to make money through banking, then why don't you? "

OK, I take the "immoral" argument, fair enough.

Counterfeiters don't have to create money in their own economy. In fact they most often don't. They make US dollars, mostly. You don't to own money in an economy to make money.

The other posters have pointed out my legality argument in a more lucid way, so I'll stop there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
M made an analogy - i.e. An analogy is a comparison between two different things, in order to highlight some form of similarity -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

The "Fractional" part of FRB means that the banks cannot make unlimited amounts of money.. The fact that they are an integral part of society and have been doing this for a number of years means that (for example) about 90% of USDs were created by FRB..

Theory..  B)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_re..._banking_system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation

The 90% figure.. well you will just have to look that up  :)

He wasn't making an analogy, he was saying they were functionally equivalent, which is a different thing. If he were making an analogy that would be fair enough - there are similarities. The differences are exactly the differences you pointed out, which are fairly significant from a moral perspective.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&hs=8R...nal+equivalence

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this sounds reasonable....I will gladly at this point (because I have a headache!) retract any claims that the underwriting industry is functionally equivalent to FRB - I am not fully convinced but I literally am having trouble focusing anymore!

Scooter thank you for being the only one on this forum who has offered a reasonable argument.

You are also right, this could go on forever, because everytime I ask for someone to explain why FRB is not theft, I get some ham-fisted response. :(  All you bankers out there I am still waiting for the answer - if you cannot provide one, then accept the conclusion.....Banking is immoral.

Then my job here is done and I can go back to underwriting. Have a good one...

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You really shouldn't. Financial sector undoubtedly keeps UK plc afloat. Whether you like it or not.

Actually, I disagree with this statement: The financial sector accounts for around 11% of London's GDP, and about half that nationally. Manufacturing, which we are always being told is a dying sector, accounts for 17% of GDP nationally.

Graeme

Link to post
Share on other sites

MARKO

Engineers & people that 'create' things are also guilty parties taking advantage of consumers.

I find almost nothing I buy works properly, be it paint stripper, lawn feed or the latest Microsoft offering. I have 5 remote controls that came as standard with my Panasonic TV system - 5! It took months to find my way round it all.

I find most things overhyped including technology. For example I used to have a recording studio and was forever bombarded with messages that I 'must get the latest upgrade' or expander. In reality almost all of these additionas didnt really add value and often created new technical problems (eg configuration with other equipment).

And as for assembly instructions!!!!!!! What prats write these? Engineers / tecky types with no consumer empathy and zero common sense.

INTERACTIVE TV - often hyped by the BBC as essential life enhancing stuff, yet when I press 'the red button' I receive a load of meaningless pointless drivel.

Engineers benefit by creating all this shite, 90% of which we dont need.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, I disagree with this statement: The financial sector accounts for around 11% of London's GDP, and about half that nationally. Manufacturing, which we are always being told is a dying sector, accounts for 17% of GDP nationally.

Graeme

There is no disagreement, I know that manufacturing is more robust than commonloy believed, aren't we making more cars than ever? However, manufacturing is on a slow but sure decline.

Nonetheless as Marko has so painstakingly pointed out the financial sector can conjure wealth out of nothing (or out of foreigners, even better) whereas with manufacturing we need expensive foreign inputs so I maintain that, particularly in London, this sector keeps UK plc afloat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
MARKO

Engineers & people that 'create' things are also guilty parties taking advantage of consumers.

I find almost nothing I buy works properly, be it paint stripper, lawn feed or the latest Microsoft offering. I have 5 remote controls that came as standard with my Panasonic TV system - 5! It took months to find my way round it all.

I find most things overhyped including technology. For example I used to have a recording studio and was forever bombarded with messages that I 'must get the latest upgrade' or expander. In reality almost all of these additionas didnt really add value and often created new technical problems (eg configuration with other equipment).

And as for assembly instructions!!!!!!! What prats write these? Engineers / tecky types with no consumer empathy and zero common sense.

INTERACTIVE TV - often hyped by the BBC as essential life enhancing stuff, yet when I press 'the red button' I receive a load of meaningless pointless drivel.

Engineers benefit by creating all this shite, 90% of which we dont need.

I agree that a lot of tat is pushed on to us, tat that we don't need...but it is marketers who are doing that, not engineers! of course there are lots of examples of people taking advantage of consumers....EAs for one! There are probably bad eggs in every profession including of course engineering - many aerospace engineers in the UK are involved in arms engineering. This is VERY morally dodgy...that is why I won't do it.

I am taking issue with banking as a profession because it is the only one that I know where the people who work in it are allowed to create money from thin air for themselves...do you think this is fair?

Really, I am serious...do you think this is morally defendable?

I will never get tired of pointing out that it is THEFT from the rest of us, because I know most people find the idea ludicrous. Theft? Money from nothing? Surely not? Yes, THEFT. And the process by which it happens is (to quote John Kenneth Galbraith) "so simple that the mind is repelled".

This should change.

Edited by marko
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 440 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.