Reply #41: You suggested i called bankers fascist. I didn't. That's silly

[B Whale]

That's silly. I take your point about generalisations however. Not all bankers are immoral or scum (however i didn't say that anywhere) but i believe the banking system and culture is immoral and i also believe (having worked in a sector servicing banking) that many bankers are fully 'bought in' (to use one of their phrases) to that culture and are therefore immoral themselves. as a banker yourself (not sure but you sound like one) you probably won't agree, but i think that bankers and the financiers simply don't get it yet. The short lived party of greed and excess is over. So lets have a discussion again next year about how we move forward once you've accepted this.

"As for 8% this is a short sited estimate as you have forgotten that the majority of their salaries are spent in the UK and therefore a more conservative estimation they contribute 16- 25% as an industry due to the amount of industries that rely upon them"

Not to be too cheeky, but now i know you are definitley a banker. Simple mathematics. How can an industry that is 8% of GDP suddenly become 16% - 25% of GDP when counting salaries spent etc. What about manufacturing? the Car industry? Lets say that manufacturing (for example) contributes 20% of GDP, by your argument that should be more like 40% say because of reliant industries etc. Hotel and catering 10%, so lets say factoring in other industries (cleaning for example) it comes to 15%. We've now only got 20% of total GDP left???? from the 3 i've just mentioned. You can only go to 100% of GDP in the real world. But anyway...

"Money going abroad is a thing of the yester year" Nonsense it runs into trillions. If you don't believe me research it. Toynbee recently released some data in her book relating to this. A quick example of immorality of banking (since you mentioned cleaners) remember the protests outside GS because their cleaners were paying more taxes than their executives as they were avoiding paying it and hiding it offshore. Banking in a microcosm.


"A state owned banking system would never have made the same contribution to wealth" - You're not living in the real world where the rest of us are based. The banking system you know is a very recent phenomenon. Banking hasn't created wealth. Look around you. Money, numbers and nonsensical financial instrumenst were created out of thin air. You thought you were all being clever, you weren't, it was all worthless. This has been a short lived era where banking became a product in itself, it will now go back to what it always was, steward of the economy, oiling the wheels of businesses and people that actually produce things for the world and create real wealth. (next you'll be using the phrase 'trickle down')

"Further more state owned banks for the long term are inherently against democracy which we are living in" - No, that is the view of the extreme free market dogma that has been dominant for the last 30 years. It is against free market capitalism. Democracy and capitalism are not the same thing and you need to understand that, because the (short) market fundamentalist era is over. State owned banks, accountable to the public rather than being accountable to the bottom line profits, are more democractic. Everyone understands this except bankers and far right economic thinking.

"As for the concept of being able to rob the economy this is a ludricous standpoint for an argument formulated upon leftist ideas. Economic Determinist you should be and therfore the economy always is right and unfoolable. These banks are part of the 'economy' do not portray them as a separate entity which they are not!" - They are a seperate entity because they have produced nothing, hidden their (imaginary) profits off shore, avoided tax and brought the world to a standstill.

"Economic determinist you should be" Again you really need to get back in the real world. We have lived through a short burst of extremist free market capitalism. That is over, as are your university definitions and outdated insults of opponents.

"As for the man who died he died of natrual cause (rest his soul)although it must be conceded that betting was wrong but again this is generalisation from the particular." - You have believed the (bizarrely swift) police statements about this. Always questions always question, always question, it eventually leads to the truth. Google it from the Sunday Observerthis is what you'll find. The IPPC have taken witness statements from members of the public (including a press photographer) which state he was attacked by police with shields and batons a few minutes before he collapsed. There are also pictures of him lying on the floor with his arms up to the police. He is helped to his feet by a bystander (not the police as they claim, and a few yards away collapses and dies.) Its there in black and white.

As for betting, you know as well as i do the whole banking system is a casino. I'm not saying every banker betted on protestors dying, what i am saying is this is where the dominant ideology of today has led us to. An immoral, valueless crass system that the British public are disgusted with.

You need to get used to that because your world view is on the wrong side of history.