Bankers destroy £7 for every £1 they create

perseus

perseus

Active member
Well this confirms what we expected.

The New Economics Foundation think tank calculate that Bankers effectively take £7 from the rest of us for every £1 they create. The report says advertising executives and tax accountants destroy even more of society's wealth as they create their own. Childcare workers, by contrast, free up potential wealth by helping parents keep working - generating up to £9.50 for every pound they are paid. Waste recycling workers generate £12 for every pound. Hospital cleaners generate £10 for every £1.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=495946&in_page_id=2

So why not have different tax bands, not based on the amount of pay, but on the jobs value to wider society?

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=495946&in_page_id=2
 
I'm not sure exactly how this is worked out, but with my naturally pragmatic outlook, it certainly does not surprise me.
 
New York City is taking a real beating in tax revenue because of the devistation in the banking/finance industry. The institutions & employee have a huge reduction in pay, resulting in a huge drop in taxes collected. Running off revenue sources doesn't seem overly bright. Child care often costs enough here in the States to negate any advantage of working for the low to lower middle income workers. The aricle reeks of Socialist drivel, a custodian is great, but the President of the Bank isn't. Banks, here @ least, take in money & loan it back out, usually @ a ratio of 6-7:1, expanding the economy. A recycling worker will never create the wealth in a life time that a top notch bank president can in a year. The only thing close is the comment about failed banks increases the National Deficit/debt, and that is because of Socialism protecting the economy/jobs/"too big to fail" mentality instead of letting the market run its course & eliminating failed businesses.
 
Last edited:
A recycling worker will never create the wealth in a life time that a top notch bank president can in a year.
Click to expand...
The whole point of the article is to destroy the myth that bankers produce wealth, in fact a top notch banker generates negative wealth. I suspect the calculations are based on their value to society as a whole rather than any particular place. You need to examine where all this wealth is really coming from rather than looking at just the local situation.

The finance industry is surely a scam for private investors, delivering no greater returns even before charges than by chance. Banks also mercilessly impose extortionate interest rates and charges. This is where the wealth comes from.

Worse still wealthy individuals drive prices up locality, yet another scam. Higher house prices represent a poorer society not a richer one expect for those moving down the housing ladder. Think about it, if you carry on living in your house its value is meaningless. It is an illusion which people just don't get!

Banks, here @ least, take in money & loan it back out, usually @ a ratio of 6-7:1, expanding the economy.
Click to expand...

Loaning money out, without having sufficient collateral to cover it if it all goes wrong, is surely how we got into the financial crisis in the first place.
 
Last edited:
perseus said:
The whole point of the article is to destroy the myth that bankers produce wealth, in fact a top notch banker generates negative wealth. I suspect the calculations are based on their value to society as a whole rather than any particular place. You need to examine where all this wealth is really coming from rather than looking at just the local situation.

The finance industry is surely a scam for private investors, delivering no greater returns even before charges than by chance. Banks also mercilessly impose extortionate interest rates and charges. This is where the wealth comes from.

Worse still wealthy individuals drive prices up locality, yet another scam. Higher house prices represent a poorer society not a richer one expect for those moving down the housing ladder. Think about it, if you carry on living in your house its value is meaningless. It is an illusion which people just don't get!



Loaning money out, without having sufficient collateral to cover it if it all goes wrong, is surely how we got into the financial crisis in the first place.
Click to expand...
Proper collateral is a different subject from the overall comment about wealth creation. This meltdown is/should be a temporary aberation caused by Ego, greed, overcondidence & forgetting that the business cycle exists. No company in trouble has ever saved itself by hiring more custodians.
 
Bankers don't destroy wealth.
Irresponsible individuals do.
The fault the banks have is that they made loans that were bad and had no way of being repaid. But ultimately the folks who took out second and third mortgages to buy their dream yacht were at fault.
Bankers aren't exactly on my list of favorite people but blaming them for all the troubles is a bit one sided.
 
This is hilarious. We are still sat around villifying bankers - long overdue, but well after the fact. None of us complained whilst the "economy" was healthy - even though the bulk of Western / consumer society was living beyond its means - and we all knew that!!

So the bankers have to take some of the blame, but they played the cards they were dealt in order to win - last time I checked they weren't charities. I do feel angry about the stupid amounts of money earnt, but that is capitaliasm, it goes to the higher performers, but that should always be touched by social recognition.

Where I get really peeved is that there are 2 major contributors to this whole debacle who haven't really been taken to task and sorted out for their failures:

1. Central govt - it is their job to legislate in order to protect society, but also to ensure that those legisalations are followed up - FAIL, in oversight and action.
2. Credit rating agencies - have insertd themselves between the banks and the borrowers, they are supposed to be the honest broker - they failed, they chased the money and basically paved the path to ruin.

So what has operationally changed for these bodies - nothing, it is business as usual and we're all following the latest press release on the size ^^^nipple or the fact that 8 babies are on television and have something wise to say!!

Ultimately, however, it is us the voting &general public that are guilty of creating this mess, we lacked the initiative to question and the balls to say this is wrong - our mess, time to suck it up and enjoy the burn!!
 
You make a good point Partisan, Reagan and thatcher are partly responsible for deregulating the sector back in the 80s.

However I think there are more important issues. The Finance and Legal professions make life so complex they end up virtually creating their own jobs and justifying their extortionate salaries. Astrologers and Bishops used to do the same. We have to critically examine how essential it is what they actually do, or if they simply fill a parasitic existence.

To me Banks have a relatively simple job of depositing and loaning money, most of this can be achieved without creating a massive industry. In the UK we have Credit Unions run by charities which do much the same for the less well off.

I could foresee the problem of loaning money with security dependant resting on rising property prices. Most bankers are crap at their job and we need to stop glorifing them.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top