Can the Labour party re-invent Socialism ?

[rathcoole_exile]

Never mind the economics side of the argument.

I am just bemused and exasperated that they have elected someone who openly supports the IRA, Hamas, Hezbollah, and endorses the Argentine claim over the Falklands

 

[0007]

Never mind the economics side of the argument.

I am just bemused and exasperated that they have elected someone who openly supports the IRA, Hamas, Hezbollah, and endorses the Argentine claim over the Falklands

If you judge a man by the company he keeps then Comrade Corbyn looks decidedly dodgy.

 

[tomorton]

I was referring to PLC's, where shareholders own the company but the decision making process is removed from them to management who run the company.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/high-pay-centre-ftse-100-ceo-pay-versus-average-salary-2015-8

Pension fund managers who have massive block votes are in on the game who also charge exorbitant management fees on pensions.

The system is very much tilted, skewed in the interests of the few against the interests of the many.

Yes, the owners delegate the decision process to their management, and they can take it back if they wish. Presumably they (including the pension fund managers) feel that it is less profitable to do so. Its hard to believe that the bulk of UK companies offer much poorer return on capital invested compared to their overseas-based competitors because they pay large bonuses to top managers.

Why should there be a linkage between average UK CEO pay and average UK pay? If CEO's got only 10% above the national average, how would that make the country either fairer or more competitive?

 

[Atilla]

Yes, the owners delegate the decision process to their management, and they can take it back if they wish. Presumably they (including the pension fund managers) feel that it is less profitable to do so. Its hard to believe that the bulk of UK companies offer much poorer return on capital invested compared to their overseas-based competitors because they pay large bonuses to top managers.

Why should there be a linkage between average UK CEO pay and average UK pay? If CEO's got only 10% above the national average, how would that make the country either fairer or more competitive?

Pension fund contributions are indeed falling and insufficient to cover the impending aging popullations future pension liability. That is one ticking bomb that'll come home to roost in another 20 years for sure.

Those in the know prefer to manage their own portfolios. One example, buy-to-let pays approx 5-6% returns with the full capital value of ones portfolio still owned by the landlard unlike a pension pot.


Also, suggestion was that there should be a linkage between employee's in the same company that's earning the profits not on average salaries in the UK.

Suggestion was also that perhaps similar to taxation, bonus payments (rewards) should be flat or regressive based on ones income.


Anybody who thinks Bob Diamond was good value for money and earned his dollars must be off their rocker imo. Barclays at this very moment still trying to undo his changes, makes one wonder how these leaders can claim to be worth the money they are paid.

You talk about fairness but how would you explain top executives continuing to pay themselves rises and bonuses even in a deep recession caused primarily by their short term greed leaves one speechless.

Here is one from the US of A but the response from the execs in UK was not much different. Parliament did not do the same by the way. They allowed it. That is payment of bonuses for top execs who's companies were bailed out by tax payers.


http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/04/obama.executive.pay/index.html?eref=rss_us
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Pledging to take "the air out of golden parachutes," President Obama announced Wednesday that executives of companies receiving federal bailout money will have their pay capped at $500,000 under a revised financial compensation plan.

$500,000 will be the limit on executive salaries at companies receiving tax dollars, President Obama says.
$500,000 will be the limit on executive salaries at companies receiving tax dollars, President Obama says.

Last year's "shameful" handout of $18 billion in Wall Street bonuses "is exactly the kind of disregard for the costs and consequences of their actions that brought about this crisis: a culture of narrow self-interest and short-term gain at the expense of everything else," Obama said to reporters at the White House.

"For top executives to award themselves these kinds of compensation packages in the midst of this economic crisis isn't just bad taste -- it's a bad strategy -- and I will not tolerate it. We're going to be demanding some restraint in exchange for federal aid -- so that when firms seek new federal dollars, we won't find them up to the same old tricks," the president added.

Under Obama's plan, companies that want to pay their executives more than $500,000 will have to do so through stocks that cannot be sold until the companies pay back the money they borrow from the government. The rules will be implemented by the Treasury Department and do not need to be approved by Congress.


I'd be interested to know if you feel Congress acted unfairly and the poor execs who were impacted by these pay limits were hard done by?

 

[0007]

Corbyn – the future?

I reckon this guy from Cardiff has probably got it about right.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...The-lessons-of-history-for-Jeremy-Corbyn.html

 

[timsk]

Never mind the economics side of the argument.

I am just bemused and exasperated that they have elected someone who openly supports the IRA, Hamas, Hezbollah, and endorses the Argentine claim over the Falklands

Indeed. But on the plus side, he would scrap Trident. I could (almost) overlook any of his short comings based on that!

 

[Pat494]

Next Wednesday's question time is going to be interesting. He is reportedly asking around for questions to ask.
One might be to ask the PM as to how many Trident submarines does he think it will take to swat one terrorist ?
Does he intend to perhaps drop a submarine on a target in Syria ?

 

[0007]

Next Wednesday's question time is going to be interesting. He is reportedly asking around for questions to ask.
One might be to ask the PM as to how many Trident submarines does he think it will take to swat one terrorist ?
Does he intend to perhaps drop a submarine on a target in Syria ?

What has Trident got to do with terrorists?

 

[timsk]

What has Trident got to do with terrorists?

Nothing at all - which is why it's an utter waste of money!

 

[tomorton]

You talk about fairness but how would you explain top executives continuing to pay themselves rises and bonuses even in a deep recession caused primarily by their short term greed leaves one speechless.

Actually, I don't talk about fairness, I was resonding to your comments. It isn't important to me in the sense it is to you. I don't believe notions of fairness should be allowed to drive corporate governance of plc's, nor director remunerations, nor legislation as to how plc's are structured.

A plc is a mechanism for making money, not good deeds. The more money it makes, the more people it employs, the more they spend, the more tax they pay, the better the standard of living in the country where they're employed and where I live. I'd rather that was all in the UK.

Meantime, as I don't own any part of any plc, I'm happy to ignore what they do with the profits they make as long as they obey the law. After all, its their money.

 

[Pat494]

What has Trident got to do with terrorists?

The PM is determined apparently to have 4 new Trident subs built at billions per sub. The current threat as you know is terrorism. Ergo the tongue in cheek question. His 40% cuts are presumably to help pay for them.

 

[Atilla]

Actually, I don't talk about fairness, I was resonding to your comments. It isn't important to me in the sense it is to you. I don't believe notions of fairness should be allowed to drive corporate governance of plc's, nor director remunerations, nor legislation as to how plc's are structured.

A plc is a mechanism for making money, not good deeds. yes but what about who gets the profits? We are talking about disparity in income and bonus distribution.The more money it makes, the more people it employs, the more they spend, the more tax they pay, the better the standard of living in the country where they're employed and where I live. I'd rather that was all in the UK.

Meantime, as I don't own any part of any plc, I'm happy to ignore what they do with the profits they make as long as they obey the law. After all, its their money.

The fairness question was in response to your contribution

"Why should there be a linkage between average UK CEO pay and average UK pay? If CEO's got only 10% above the national average, how would that make the country either fairer or more competitive?"


1. There should be linkage between all employee's of a company contributing towards profits and distribution of reward.

2. Distribution of rewards is heavily skewed in favour of those already earning the most (ie as per distribution of banking profits).

3. A fairer wage and better distribution of income will lead to greater level of people being able to produce, invent and be healthier.

If we didn't have minimum wage and we let in migrant workers, do you not think wages for toilet cleaners would be pushed down to even £1 p/h by desperate people?


Otherwise, the population of a country is merely just that a number of human beings living hand to mouth rather than becoming better educated productive factor of production.

 

[Atilla]

Re: Trident and Nuclear missiles there is an excellent BBC 4 production called "War Book"

Drama in which civil servants take part in a regular role-playing game to practise their response to a nuclear explosion leading to all-out nuclear war.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b065ylyy

Brings home the drama if there is such a threat and needs to be invoked we are all well and truly stuffed no matter who fires first.

UK accounts for something like 2% of total war heads on the globe and spending billions isn't really going to make much difference either way.

Well worth watching.

 

[tomorton]

1. There should be linkage between all employee's of a company contributing towards profits and distribution of reward.

2. Distribution of rewards is heavily skewed in favour of those already earning the most (ie as per distribution of banking profits).

3. A fairer wage and better distribution of income will lead to greater level of people being able to produce, invent and be healthier.

If we didn't have minimum wage and we let in migrant workers, do you not think wages for toilet cleaners would be pushed down to even £1 p/h by desperate people?

1. Why?

2. So what?

3. It would as likely lead to loss of competitiveness compared to more focused companies taking the business.

But we do have minimum wage and I hope we keep it. Yes, the more desperate people are the more likely they will accept it, but hopefully only until they can work their way higher through society through ambition, work and education, either them or their offspring. I have stated elsewhere on this site I wish we had a way to employ all the migrants we could find right now, they just could turn out to be a huge asset and an opportunity for us rather than a problem. But it takes at least a century view to accept this argument, no politician is ever going to do that.

 

[Atilla]

1. Why?

Reminds me of the joke about George Bush and his **** hole. Why not? No man is an island.

Why not have flat bonus. Everyone gets 10% of profits based on salary. Salary determines level of contribution right? More important job function higher the salary. So why not base bonuses on flat rate.

Also, do chief execs really produce and account for total outcome of a company?

Are we saying 20% of the work force produce 80% of the profits? I wouldn't think so. Perhaps 20% of clients may bring in 80% of profits but it's a whole team event.



2. So what?

You don't seem to grasp that government and those in charge have a duty to command all resources in their domain. To look after 1% and deny 99% of the population a fair wage and income means stunting the creative productive capability of the masses.

It's all about access to resources and spare time for people to fulfill their potential. Money facilitates that.

Instead of treating the masses like dirt why not take the whole country to a higher level.

I'm so sick of some rich snotty people I want to throw up. The more some people have the more vile they become. Their children become sick obnoxious snots too. Not all rich people but just as poor people can be real arses so can rich twits.

Money and access to wealth is a great facilitator. Donald Trump wouldn't be the arrogant sod he is today if not for his inheritance. Guy goes around as if his made it all him self. Hope you catch my drift.

There are many average and less than average people who if they had resources could do and achieve great many dreams.




3. It would as likely lead to loss of competitiveness compared to more focused companies taking the business.

If you are referring to utilising capital where it's marginal return is greatest than what we have right now is more companies buying back shares than pretty much any other time.

I would argue less skewed distribution income, would lead to more competition and greater level of opportunity.

The industrial revolution and even Steven's rocket was all self financed from friends and family. UK industry was starved of money because it all went to financing the building of US railways which supposedly paid higher returns. In fact many UK inventions went to the US because financial backing could not be found in the UK.

But we do have minimum wage and I hope we keep it. Yes, the more desperate people are the more likely they will accept it, but hopefully only until they can work their way higher through society through ambition, work and education, either them or their offspring. I have stated elsewhere on this site I wish we had a way to employ all the migrants we could find right now, they just could turn out to be a huge asset and an opportunity for us rather than a problem. But it takes at least a century view to accept this argument, no politician is ever going to do that.

Concur with your last paragraph. Migrants can take care of them selves. I feel we need to take care of the young Brits and give them apprenticeship, certified skills and teach them trades. Pay decent wages and reduce excess bonuses.

A little bit of counter balance at both ends should be sufficient for the laissez-faire eco-system take care of the rest.

 

[hhiusa]

1. Why?

2. So what?

3. It would as likely lead to loss of competitiveness compared to more focused companies taking the business.

But we do have minimum wage and I hope we keep it. Yes, the more desperate people are the more likely they will accept it, but hopefully only until they can work their way higher through society through ambition, work and education, either them or their offspring. I have stated elsewhere on this site I wish we had a way to employ all the migrants we could find right now, they just could turn out to be a huge asset and an opportunity for us rather than a problem. But it takes at least a century view to accept this argument, no politician is ever going to do that.

Statement 3 is absolutely true. Government has no business telling people how much they can make or how much CEOs should be paid. That is why it is the private sector.

 

[tomorton]

Hi Atilla - Blimey, I think you must have had some bad run-ins with rich people. But how people behave personally towards their neighbours isn't something we or government policy can affect, I just hope things go better in the future for you.

On some other points you make -
Why not have flat bonus?
I don't see any national need for the government to direct how a private company spends its own profits.

Also, do chief execs really produce and account for total outcome of a company?
Its for the company to decide the strategy that keeps them profitable. The CEO's just another empoyee they can dismiss if they wish.

You don't seem to grasp that government and those in charge have a duty to command all resources in their domain.
Correct, I don't grasp this. They do have a duty to utilise public resources to the general good, but private property including money is another matter, its not theirs to allocate. I would expect a western democratic government to uphold the rights of ownership of assets, not to ride over them in a Mugabe-ist way. Its worth remembering that money does not belong to the government that mints it.

It also occurs to me that you're very much for letting people with little money have more, but very much against those with more money from keeping it. It seems you're saying people with little money would become better citizens if they had more. But people with more money are "snots". Would you care to draw the dividing line in £ perhaps?

 

[Pat494]

A lot of good points made above.
This country does tend to copy the US. How they run their country is of course their business but one hopes that the minimum wage here doesn't get to their so low purchasing power mw that many are forced to work 2 jobs to stay afloat. I think this causes unnecessary anxiety and stress. There is a current boom in violent murders now ? Even envy that Trump like people can swan about without even showing any care for the less fortunate. The Front Bench of grinning millionaires is almost enough to make one vote for Corbyn.

This country could and should in my opinion pay enough in the state pension to let the retired live in some comfort. There is a huge well of well honed talent out there among the retirees and it is basically unused.

 

[tomorton]

This country could and should in my opinion pay enough in the state pension to let the retired live in some comfort. There is a huge well of well honed talent out there among the retirees and it is basically unused.

Cheers Pat (I naturally assume the good points you refer to are mine - I would, wouldn't I?).

State pensions are another issue most politicians fear to risk delving into. The elderly vote. Each switching elderly voter they have pi88ed off with reforms demands 2 non-voting youngsters to join to make up the shortfall.

But if someone has made minimum NI contributions, why should they be funded by the state so they can live in comfort? Let alone paying full state pension to those with max NI as a rsult of their comfortable salaries all their lives? Shouldn't we be directing benefits to the working age population who are unemployed? They don't get a state pension at all.

And yes, the talent in the retired demographic could be better used (with more flexible work patterns, customised roles, job shares etc.), though higher pensions offer a negative financial incentive to remain in work.

 

[Pat494]

Never mind the economics side of the argument.

I am just bemused and exasperated that they have elected someone who openly supports the IRA, Hamas, Hezbollah, and endorses the Argentine claim over the Falklands

It's a psychological state of mind now well known now as the Stockholm Syndrome. This where the victims of a bank raid actually seemed to be supporting the raiders when they were trapped inside the bank by forces of law and order. I suppose it confuses the terrorists to be supported by their victims.
Certainly confuses a simple soul like me. Reminds me of that cowardly Australian General who meekly handed over Singapore in WW2.