I was somewhat surprised by the lack of traffic this morning on certain social networking sites about the demotion of Sir Fred Goodwin to plain old Mr Goodwin. There was a certain rumble but nothing like the massed ranks of gloaters I’d expected. Perhaps, I thought, given the British public’s legendary propensity for justice and goodwill, people had decided, justice having been done, that it was best to leave the man to repent in peace.

I scrubbed that idea when I realised it was patently rubbish.

I suspect the quietude we are currently seeing on this particular front is down to neither side of the political debate being able to claim crowing rights in the matter.

The left can hardly bleat. It was under dear old Tony Blair that the lowly Mr Goodwin was elevated to the peerage for “Services to banking”. I toyed with the idea of putting together a novelty forfeiture committee certificate saying he’d been stripped of the accolade “For services exclusively to banking while ignoring the risks to the rest of us poor proles” but thought better of it.

The left, in this instant, stood by and did nothing while the bankers rose to fame. I can’t remember much in the way of vocal protest at the time and while the Labour Party basked in the kind of attention from business of which they had hitherto only guiltily dreamed it’s not all that surprising.

But while the left could be accused of sleeping on the watch, the right have little claim on the moral high ground either. I may have to plough through a slack handful of Hansards to prove my point but I don’t recall the great PMQ speeches of Messrs Hague, Duncan Smith, Howard or indeed Cameron decrying the level of fawning and sycophancy towards the financial elite during Labour’s terms. Neither can I remember any mass protests in the streets or indeed in the commons demanding tougher regulation for the multi-billion-pound casinos using the fabric of our economy for chips. Then again I don’t remember them saying much about spending too much and not saving for the future. Can’t bring a single speech to mind. The memory is such a fragile thing.

As for the current leadership of both the left and the right neither seem particularly keen to say much on the subject now the deed is done. Four years after the cataclysm, Mr Milliband might be asked why he hadn’t called for such a thing before or why he wasn’t now calling for the heads of other ennobled members of the board of RBS.

Likewise Mr Cameron seems reluctant to engage in the debate, perhaps for fear of exposing the truth, which is that rather than a Conservative party Röhm-Putsch to cleanse the organisation of it’s backstairs bastards and draw a line under the affair, the grandees have circled the wagons and thrown dear old Freddie out to face the Sioux with an archery target painted on his gingham shirt.

Her Majesty, I suspect has the best complaint but is restricted by noblesse oblige from complaining about being called upon by a former PR Executive to wield the sceptre against such a transparently sacrificial goat.

No. Whatever your political complexion there’s little schadenfreude to be gained from Mr Goodwin’s exit from the other place. The whole episode was a disgrace for us all.

Fear not though, there is one thing you can think of which will unite us all with a wry smile at Freddie’s descent back in to the the ranks.

No doubt when he was ennobled Mr Goodwin will have done what all those gaining a new title do. On gaining a PHD I understand the majority’s reaction is to change ones stationary and particulars to reflect the new letters before ones name. Of course being a diligent manager of RBS, Mr G will have taken out an account with his own company and had his cards changed in a heartbeat.

So we can all sit back now with a warm feeling in our hearts as we think of him finally getting a chance to see what it’s like to be a customer of a high street bank in Britain, the like of which he once commanded.

Imagine trying to explain to ‘Rebecca’, the hard pressed engineering graduate from Mumbai that you haven’t lost your plastic or had it stolen, you’ve simply fallen from grace. I suspect there isn’t a form for that.

He’ll presumably have to repeat the exercise with Adam & Company, who, I understand, now deal with his finances on a day to day basis.

When you tire of that image (as you may within a month or so), refresh the smile by imagining him explaining it all again to the DVLA in Swansea.

 

As is ever my want I’m a little late to press with my ponderings on the matter of Stephen Hesters bonus, but this does mean I can mainly point you at articles written by better authors than I. Which is a good thing for everyone I suspect.

As I may have commented once or twice in the past, I’m rather keen on the rule of law and of contracts being honoured, and as far as I can tell Mr Hesters bonus was a matter of contract. Mr Hester didn’t cause RBS to need a massive bailout he was brought in after the fact by the last Government to sort out the mess. This is by any stretch of the imagination likely to be a tough task, so to get him to leave the rather good job he was in the offered remuneration had to be something to make him want to take the job. This something including bonuses would have been agreed when he signed up for the job, and now due to a baying mob he’s in the position of being told:
“You’re doing a great job, but people who don’t know what you do don’t think you deserve your bonus and will make your life miserable if you take the money we al agreed you should have if you do a good job, which by the way you are”
Not exactly likely to motivate him is it? Can’t help but suspect if say this had been a tube driver being told he couldn’t have his bonus ‘cos the public didn’t like that there might be a strike in the offing and trade tribunals happening, or you know if the Government decided to change public sector workers pensions people might say that was unfair. As he was head hunted from a rather nice job, on the ground of the total package including bonuses which he’s now not taking, it makes you wonder if he wouldn’t just say sod it and look for another job.

As someone who gets a performance related bonus, I rather worry when I see other people in the private sector being hounded like this over private contractual matters. After all there’s nothing but publicity and arbitrary levels of greed separating me from Mr Hester. So if people feel that despite his contract and him reportedly doing a good job it’s fair to call to “occupy this guys house till he donates his bonus to charity”, why not occupy my house? Why is it that it’s terrible for a banker to potentially earn this much but it’s fine for footballers? They’re both employed by private companies, both industries receive Government funding, so surely there should be calls for footballers to give up their bonuses as well? Except of course Footballers generally get cash bonuses where as Mr Hester was being awarded share options so to get any benefit from them he has to stay with the company, and in fact the value of those options are dependent on his making RBS a success. Which is very much in the Government and tax payers interest as if it’s not a success we lose all that money we used to bail them out with.

Ultimately I don’t know if Mr Hester deserves his share options or his wage, I didn’t interview him. Those that did interview him and took the decision to employ him obviously thought they were getting a reasonable deal though, and two Governments seem to have agreed. Yet because a small but vocal part of the population who also didn’t interview him or work with him, think the value of his share options (which he might or might not have ever got) was too high he was forced to give up his fair wage. This hardly seems likely to motivate anyone to take the job, or to take any high profile job in the UK, too big a bonus the mob will take it from you, too much profit the mob will take it from you, doing just a bit too well generally and the mob will pull you down – and then we wonder why our industry isn’t doing so well.

To end on a few slightly tangential points, in their triumphant e-mail message at having “pestered” Mr Hester out of his legal wage 38Degrees said:
John: “A small enough victory but I hope a significant one. On to chasing tax dodgers and saving our NHS :)”
So I’m guessing they’ll be fully behind whistle blowing on people that pay cash, and are every happy to have lost the half million tax Mr Hester might have paid on that bonus. Once the 1% are dealt with, will they then work their way down to those in the top 25%?

 

Revolution in suburbia A recent post by Fausty reminded me that I’d written this a while back, so… enjoy.

As many people have observed one of the best ways for an individual to very quietly combat the creeping power of the state is to “starve the beast”, don’t give it any money you don’t have to. Now this doesn’t need to mean doing anything illegal, in fact you could even say you’re just following their advice. Follow the example of those early radicals pictured at the top of this article and grow your own, and if you can’t do that just spend less ask yourself:
Do I need that enough to give this government 20% of the price?

If we buy less we reduce our carbon footprints, if we grow our own we reduce our food miles, if we do our own repairs and help each other out for free we’re taking part in the big society – see we’re just doing what the Government wants. We can kill it by just following it’s own advice. Though of course they already worrying about (though not yet for tax reasons) the radical actions of picking wild berries. Really annoy them and Brew your own not only do they not get their double hit of taxes but you screw up their statistics as well. By preparing more of your own food you might even be able to avoid the fat tax if it makes it over here.

No single huge act that raises any of us from the crowd or attracts unwelcome attention, just hundred of small acts of refusal, starving the Government by a thousand cuts.

Become a dissident:

“Say no to government in any way you can, in the workplace, among friends, on the internet. There are a hundred little soapboxes to climb onto. Don’t be quite so concerned that you think left-wing bloggers are chuckleheads or right-wing bloggers are evil Tories. If you are not an apparatchik, you’re little people and you’re all the same to the ruling class, who went from being public servants to being autocrats in a remarkably small space of time.”

Become part of a clever revolution, we only need to convince 10% of the people.

 

As the idea of the replacing the Queens 44 year old yacht as a present for her diamond jubilee seems to continue to be a matter of debate amongst my friends I find myself wondering a few things. The first is does she actually want a new yacht of any sort, or would this be like getting a very expensive knitted sweater from your granny that will never see the light of day? Though of course as the video above observes who wouldn’t want a massive yacht?

The thing I’d be more doubtful about is who’d organize the fund raising, a government quango? If the government was involved I’ll just post her a bit of sailcloth as that would probably be more likely to result in her getting a yacht than anything the government touched. The idea that it could also be used as some sort of “university of the seas” doesn’t make it much of a present either.
“here you go love, brand new boat for you – but you can only use it when we say so ‘cos we want to use it as a trendy university so no nipping off for your holidays on it – think of it as more of a time share”
So no if the Government is invovled that isn’t going to fly, but lets instead assume that the Queen does actually want a yacht, then could not Philip pull a few strings to get some of the more informed great and good to create “Prince Phillips – buy my missus a boat” fund run along charitable lines and open to public subscription? I have seen some people scoffing at the idea that public subscription might actually pay for it, but really it’s not that silly an idea – the mooted price of the erstwhile yacht is 60 million (yachts it seems are expensive), now there are estimated to be over 60 million people living in the UK, so that’s say a quid each. Now of course a lot of people wouldn’t want to chip in, but on the other hand her Maj is quite popular globally so some foreign types might throw in the odd bob or two (preferably not Euro’s we want real money here) and well Charles and Andrew etc. might perhaps throw in a bit extra. So really is buying the yacht via voluntary public subscription that strange an idea?

Finally there is a very practical fiscal upside to all of this. If the government isn’t invovled then the foundation/charity what have you can use who ever they like to build it. No mucking about with EU tendering mandates, they can just go down to bob’s boat emporium (round the back of the Neesden marina and sewage plant) chuck him some dosh and say on you go mate. So that could be 60 million pounds or private capital from around the world being pumped into British industry, as for all the talk of the decline in our industry something that we continue to do well at is luxury. A high tech state of the art luxury boat – that’s right up the street for British industry, and such a yacht would make an excellent show case for the businesses invovled. Finally of course all those businesses and workers involved will be paying tax, so the project will have deftly pilfered the pockets of foreign contributors* to swell the nations ailing coffers. What’s not to like about the plan? Given it could avoid tendering outside of the UK, it sounds a better idea than high speed rail?

* Only foreign contributors they’d have got our money sooner or later anyway so that can hardly count.

Update: First I’d like to point out I wrote this at 15:27 so before the Gaudrian article saying that some of the great and good were setting up a charity and that the Queen wouldn’t mind a yacht etc… But I do wonder why the price has gone up by 20 million between the BBC article and the Gaurdians.

 

We need more government Yes once more I’m returning to those crazy kids of the occupy movement, in a week where the LAPD have reportedly been destorying occupy tents* apparently up in Edinburgh the little bit of weather they’ve been having has cleared that camp quite effectively. As the lovely picture from Punk rock Libertarians wonderfully illustrates despite objectionable (and they have objected) tactics from the police the occupy movement seems to continue to call for more government control (of everyone else).

Over her on the more civilised side of the pond our police sent round a badly titled memo warning business people in the city that they’d had reports that some elements of the occupy movement might get up to unpleasant shenanigans and hijinks in the run up to Christmas. No doubt fuelled by copious amounts of non-alchoholic fair trade organic egg-nog. The occupy lot rather took objection to being on the same standard memo as other more nasty people, I’d have thought they’d have been chuffed to be being taken seriously. The warning seems reasonable given the mess that previous related marches and such like have caused.

The London crowd though seem to be made of cannier stuff and have prepared for winter by on the back of the strikes the other week, have “occupied” a variety of unoccupied buildings – something that used to be called squatting when I were an even younger lad. My current favourite of these is the Bloomsbury square squat.

Bloomsbury square squat Renamed by the squatters as the “Bloomsbury Social Centre” the comrades are keeping the read flag flying with an inclusive “communism” banner hanging out the upstairs window. Rather wonderfully they have both a Facebook and WordPress presence to truly demonstrate their anti-captilist stance. The WordPress site also has a Bookign form as the squat is apparently “a community space” and they’d “love for you to host your event here. All welcome!” (Told you that banner was inclusive). I wonder if they’d accept corporate bookings and if any of the students would be prepared to work as table service? After all times are tough and we’re all in it together and surely they’d not begrudge a bit of festive cheer to the working classes at this time of year. If anyone is worried about the risk of booking the venue they have reportedly had a health and safety assessment done so the “police can’t get them on health and safety grounds – from which I assume there are no law students involved. One of their main objections seems to be that the University plans to start using the building again and horror the new dean of post-grads will get “a luxury apartment in the top-floor of the building.” the bastard. Though I do agree with them that “our social spaces as well as our ability to organise are under attack” and whilst they may hope that squatting in a university building will tackle the issue, I can’t help but think helping to repair a run down old church hall might not achieve more.

As with every squat/occupation they have a Wish list, and looking at that I can’t help but observe that if someone did want to really cause any of these protests problems the wish lists are the way in – but then I’m not a very nice person. Of course many of these wish list items could apparently be gained by intercepting them before retail stores deliberately destroy them. All businesses obviously loving to spend time and resources destroying things rather than just throwing them out. I suspect those particular “occupiers” are too young to recall the times when you could buy electrical goods in jumble sales and the like, before the safety elf degreed that that was too dangerous as the cables might be a bit threadbare, so then they could only be sold for spares and now not at all. So the stores that used to donate food to shelters and might pass on electrical goods to charity now have to destroy them for fear of liability.

Still to end on a high note the lot over at St. Pauls have at least finally (I’m a bit late on this) after a mere six weeks decide what they want to ask Santa for for Christmas. Strangely the list doesn’t define the cut off point for being counted amongst the wealthiest nor what their “share” might be. Even more strangely they’re not asking Santa for a pony perhaps someone read them LegIrons story.

As the septicisle observes just six weeks to come up with the same list as UK uncut – they’ll prove the infinite monkeys theory right yet.

* As reported the police action strikes me as criminal destruction of property but I don’t know US laws.

 

With economics so to the fore front and the idea that the way to solve the problem is to tax the rich more, or maybe tax the “banks” on every thing they do I thought maybe it was time to dig through the pile of open tabs to try and pull together a few thoughts. So do forgive the incoherence as I’m trying to work this all out for myself.

As I may have mentioned before I really don’t get this whole economics stuff, as clever people assure me that it all works very differently for countries and large companies than it does for us mere mortals – though it would seem they can go bust just as well as we can. As Douglas Carswell has observed we do seem to have tested public spending to death, and maybe it’s time to look at the supply side. On the supply side we’re told that we have to stay within Europe to be able to survive, yet we’re a net contributor to the EU, so in theory they’d miss us more than we’d miss them – and more than that it seems an awful lot of our trade doesn’t involve the EU anyway. So how to encourage that supply side further, well traditionally what’s worked has been to have lower taxes, so that more businesses can set up and employ more people for more profit. Oddly for reasons I can’t fathom the idea of generally having low and simple taxes is disliked by politicians and protesters. Yet surely more industry means more work, means fewer benefits, means it’s more profitable to invest in industry than it is in debt and well everyone wins. With 20% vat, and more on fuel and booze the Government might even make more money. Rather than throwing all that money at the banks and such they could have cut tax, taking those on minimum wage and on tax credits out of tax entirely would have stimulated the economy as they bought more and had less debt and also reduced costs of the paper work invovled in administering that lot – really how could you object? The other plus of a simpler tax system is it makes tax evasion harder. Whilst those trying to occupy various financial centers are focussing on the banks estimates suggest that “half the workers of the world — close to 1.8 billion people — were working in System D: off the books, in jobs that were neither registered nor regulated, getting paid in cash, and, most often, avoiding income taxes.” (H/T Samizdata). So it’s no where near 1% that are evading taxes, and that number is for out right evasion not avoidance, surely it would make more sense to get rid of taxes we’re not collecting anyway decriminalise that activity and make up the revenue on sales tax which is effectively an elective tax, and if basics aren’t taxed it’s even progressive*.

As other people have observed when we talk about taxing businesses we’re taxing a fiction. Businesses are just people organised to work together, so we’re taxing people – even banks are just ultimately groups of people. A transaction tax (tobin, or employment tax) will just become factored in as part of the cost of business and passed onto the customer. So as we’re ultimately just taxing people why not remove the fallacy of that businesses are some how not people, and skip the middle man to just tax people directly, after all evidence suggests lower business tax means more business. A simple flat rate of income tax (if we want to keep that) would cost less to administer and be far less worthwhile avoiding, raising the base rate of tax so that people on minimum wage didn’t pay it would allow for a lower minimum wage (leaving take home income unaffected), making it cheaper to employ people and thus more people are likely to be employed. OK getting from here to there may not be simple, but really if we moved far more of the tax collection into sales tax, it’d be harder to avoid, have less impact on the less well off – how’d it be a bad thing exactly?

* Whatever “progressive” means this week, but a higher rate of tax on larger TV’s would surely impact the better off more than those at the lower end which is we’re told a good thing.

 

Whilst the students march under the banner of “9th Nov”, with the demands in smaller paler print, it seems that Italy is heading rapidly under water with Barclays Capital saying Italy Is Finished: “Mathematically Beyond Point Of No Return” (H/T Katabasis). The global markets aren’t doing so well, so an excellent time to be campaigning for your Government to keep spending more money than you’ve got. If of course that’s what the students are doing, as the small print says:
“Fight privatisation, defend eduction”
Given how many universities started as private enterprises one wouldn’t have thought that defending education would have to entail fighting privatisation but hey what do I know?

For anyone still confused by the economic situation Small dead animals has it explained (H/T Samizdata):

 

Sorry to be posting so much in such a small space of time, rest assured this will not be kept up and normal lack of service will soon be resumed (not being on holiday will no doubt help). However this evening I actually remembered to watch some TV I’d seen trailers for, this is a bit of a calender event but the trailer had annoyed me which is a great motivation. If you didn’t watch it do make time to watch Channel 4′s “the flaw” it’s really rather good, even if not entirely convincing. The highlight of course being Alan Greenspan admitting he was wrong, but to look at a slight hint of the incoherence from the blurb:

“He’d placed too much faith in the self-correcting power of free markets. In a system based on the unsustainable lending necessary to fuel continued spending, the world found to its cost what happens when that credit bubble bursts.

Drawing on interviews with leading world economists, The Flaw attempts to explain – in unprecedented depth – the underlying causes of the global financial crisis.

Unless the root causes of the problem are addressed, the system may collapse again, and next time it may not be possible for governments to rescue it.”

As I’m going to mutter about most of that I’d just ask if anyone’s noticed the governments actually managing to rescue the system this time round?

But anyway onto my notes, this may not be entirely coherent as I’ll address things as they came up in the program. Apparently there’s been a total failure of markets, which seems odd as the idea of the markets I thought included the capacity for anything to fail so that prices can be corrected – that the various markets haven’t been allowed to collapse would seem to me tend to suggest that market forces haven’t actually been in play. The efficiency of markets only operating when prices are allowed to move downwards as well as up, which is something governments aren’t terribly keen on. Amusingly for me markets were described as the wisdom of the crowd reaching a consensus on prices, which seems a lot like the consensus wisdom of the crowds decision making the anti market occupy/anonymous groups use. So you’ve one consensus model saying a very similar consensus model has been proven to have failed.

Also on the amusement front was a New York Times economist, so one of the experts that’s telling us all how to fix it and what’s wrong, took out a mortgage based purely on his having a job with no regards for his income and is now hugely in debt and at risk of losing the house he couldn’t afford. He did at least admit he should have known better and that he was taking out a dodgy mortgage – one does have to wonder if he can screw that up so well why should we listen to anything else he has to say. He may of course be atypical of economic experts – I’ll enjoy the schadenfreude regardless. It does however highlight that whilst we all busy blaming the greed and short termism of the banks we’ve been behaving in exactly the same way (I am of course painting with a broad brush here). The lesson of the program for me was that a lot of the people that invested in the idea that property prices would keep rising ignoring the age old adage of:
“Don’t invest what you can’t afford to lose”

In that regards one thing I’d never considered was the difference between “goods” and “assets” – something I hadn’t to be fair given any thought to. “Goods” are apparently things we buy to use, “assets” we buy to sell on, people buying “goods” to treat them as “assets” screws up the market. So the popular trend of buying houses not to live in but as things to sell to make money, stops the usual supply and demand price correction. Of course once we were all buying to get rich Governments weren’t going to let the market operate and cause us all to expereince the fact that “prices can go down as well as up”.

Now onto to the fun bit of Greenspan saying he was wrong, this was obviously quite enjoyable – except he said he believed that markets were self correcting but then said he didn’t let the market self correct and this proved his model was wrong. The governments during his tenure of being wrong acting to prevent asset markets slowing down thus proving that markets didn’t self correct? Which as I may have mentioned does kind of make me think we’ve not seen free markets actually in action. A side effect of asset prices being supported by the Government is that the rich get richer as by and large the richer you are the more assets you own (after all you only need so many ipods, cars etc.). Which would seem again to suggest to me that the income inequality we hear so much about is less due to the deliberate evilness of the rich so much as the Government acting to make the rich richer whilst borrowing more from the rich to do so. Why the Government would do this is an interesting question, almost as interesting as why we let them.

The current inequality in incomes was last matched by the 1920′s, when there was the same debt based inflation of the value of “assets” (unless I misunderstood what was said). Then I got confused again as apparently until recently house prices have been quite static as have wages (both adjusted for inflation), at least until we all started borrowing to buy houses as investment. The idea of wages and house prices being fairly stable doesn’t seem a terrible thing to me – until we all decided we need to borrow money we can’t afford to lose to invest in property we’re complaining is too expensive. Once we were all borrowing to invest it became a lot more profitable to lend us the money than put it into factories, and banks and the “evil” rich being sensible sorts lent us the money so they could make more of it. Quite what would have happened if we hadn’t all wanted investment properties and easy credit is another good question, but once enough of us were demanding it there was no way our Governments would deny us our bread and circuses and so the bubbles had to keep inflating and the printing presses had to start running. Quite why stock holders followed the civil servant and governmental lead of paying bonuses for failure, is a mystery the program didn’t touch on.

The last take away message of the program, which is the bit which annoyed me in the first place, was that over the last 30 years living standards have decreased for all but the very top. A quick poll on the walk the other day suggests either we were all at the very top or that this is abject nonsense. Anna Raccoons recent article also seems to suggest it may not be quite true (Claiming benefits? There’s an app for that).

I’m sure I’ve made many foolish mistakes in the above, if someone could be so kind as to explain it to me.

 

All activities monitored by video camera Another November the 5th gone and another “quiet” walk around London with the indomitable Old Holborn, Olly Cromwell, Katabasis and others whose presence has been erased by alcohol (remind me if you want) – which was an utter blast. As has become our want we met in the pleasing environs of Chandos to exchange niceties, don costumes and imbibe a bracing drink before braving the autumnal air. Our dapper and well presented crew headed off down Whitehall, pausing to admire the security in place at that bastion of democracy that is Downing street. Setting the theme for the day they didn’t seem pleased to see us, undeterred we continued unto the very doors of the palace of Westminster where some terribly nice people told us that as the politicans don’t work on a Saturday it’d cost us 15 quid a head to get in:
Continue reading »

 

Look out there's a monster comingThanks to Katabasis for this lead, it seems that having thrown loads of money at the Eurozone via the European Financial Stability Facility – the EU Zone are going to extract even more money from it’s indebted members and indenture them forever into the service of the European Stability Mechanism. London loves Business has the low down but for a quick tour of the highlights:

  • Total immunity from prosecution
  • Employee’s don’t pay tax
  • Eurozone members can never leave
  • If it asks for money members have to pay within 7 days, and it has no limit on what it can ask for

Oh and bankrupt Ireland will have to pay in 11Bn Euro’s that it doesn’t have for the privilege of giving all hint of sovereignty up to this unelected unaccountable quango.

© 2011 Anonymong Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha