SimpyTimpy

EccoNoob, couldn't agree with you more

Skinhead hair is quite easy to do I would have thought haha

The OP appears to be looking for reasons why as part of the thread...

You still could be stuck in a situation where you cannot reclaim your property without costly legal bills though.

Not been following you on the forums, so this is the first thread I've seen you post in. Your first post in this thread was quite sensible - this one just serves to discredit you. You may view some of these jobs as unimportant, but do remember that those being made redundant will be going through incredibly stressful times, so try and show some consideration.

Completely understand your point of view, just trying to explain why some people would view it as morally wrong. My own view is that, unfortunately, UK law doesn't seem to protect property owners enough in Squatters cases, so it would be too much of a risk to someone. There's also the argument about insurance, protecting the building and any property inside it etc. So although it would be nice, I can fully understand why people who hate the prospect of their property being squatted in.

Looking on the internet too helps you find better prices.

Morally wrong. So, although they legally own these buildings, if they're not in use and don't plan to be for the short to medium term, what harm is there in allowing people that may otherwise be left to sleep on the streets? Depends how you see it, but to "turf" people out on to the street and then still not doing anything with the property could be viewed as morally wrong.

That's true - but one thing about globalisation is that national economies have to focus on a select number of markets in order to promote growth in the economy. Couple of theoretical cases: (i) The UK maintains it's struggling manufacturing industry and manages to keep growth acceptable / good - would this have resulted in the same or better growth than which was achieved when the economy was re-alligned? (ii) The UK maintains it's struggling manufacturing industry but due to high employment and land costs, finds it difficult to compete with highlight efficient economies such as Japan, Germany and cheaper economies such as India, Taiwan and China. This results in negative growth even in a fledging global economy Or what happened: (iii) The UK ceases incentives to struggling industries such as mining and manufacturing of certain goods, whilst promoting the manufacturing of complex goods (scientific devices, etc). The finance / services sectors grow at a high rate but due to lack of regulations / control, this results in London/UK being more highly exposed to the financial crisis than what would have otherwise been the case. We as a country enjoyed unprecendented growth from 1997 to 2007, but unfortunately did not plan for, or predict the financial crisis. Perhaps we should have put more money to one side instead of increasing spending on public services. We did however all benefit from this increase in spending, but it should have been done more efficiently. My point is that, pulling the subsidies from the manufacturing industries in the 70s/80s had a positive impact on the UK economy as a whole. As painful as it was to certain areas of the country.

You've completely missed my point then - I understand other areas such as tuition fee increases (which the Liberal Democrats were naive enough to pledge they wouldn't increase) and general political views against Tories/Lib Dem, but any voting decision for the moment cannot be made on economic policy (if you want to see the full impact of them)

But instead the government would have had to continue funding manufacturing sectors that weren't generating a profit, and the free market created by joining the European Union would have resulted in people importing goods for cheaper than they cost when manufactured / mined in the UK? Re-alligning the economy to be a predominantly services industry focused isn't really the problem here - it's the lack of regulation in crucial financial markets that resulted in the crash. Interesting through hindsight isn't it? If we'd chosen to regulate more heavily against the banks, they probably would have moved their HQs out of London, and we would have suffered earlier on in the first place. The main way we could have avoided this situation was from Global Policy decisions and regulations that weren't made. You can probably argue that UK Government should have pushed harder for such changes, but no-one truly foresaw the economic crisis (especially the magnitude) As said earlier in the thread, governmental policy doesn't start to truly show it's impact on an economy for years - Tory/Lib Dem policies will start to show their results by the end of this parliament, giving votes plenty of data in which to make their decisions at the polls in 4 years.

This would make a lot more sense - don't really see how eBay could manage that themselves.

Difficult one to call though - clearly the amount of force that was used could really have hurt the younger boy, but the older lad was clearly being provoked. Perhaps the school's right in these circumstances, but at the same time, the older lad was backed into a corner, and he walked off straight after.

Do it. Smoke all you like. Don't post about in on a Public Forum though, especially when tracking back through your threads might identify you. Also - setting a bad example? You know the health risks, if you're fine with that then go right ahead. One thing of note though, it doesn't make you unique, and it doesn't make you special - so don't make threads on it. About as useful as "who's gonna stop me eating Marmite??"

Yep, performance based rewards - quite commonplace in Finance. Great by John Lewis though, but other companies starting on such a business model would be very unlikely. Floating on the stock market is the main tool for expansion, and that brings in investors who want dividents.

Suppose it doesn't hurt to try, thanks Ghozer

Hey guys, Quick question, I'm looking to upgrade my MacBook (Late 2008, Aluminium) from 2GB RAM to 4GB. The new RAM I've got is the right spec (DDR3 PC-8500) but it's 4GB on one module instead of 2 x 2GB. I'm pretty sure the jump from 4GB-5GB wouldn't be that noticeable if I were to keep one of the old memory modules installed, and I've read (and it makes sense) that having two pieces of memory of different sizes isn't the optimum way. Wondering if: (a) It's OK if I were to install the 4GB module on it's own, leaving one memory slot empty (b) If there really is any degradation in performance if it were 1x 1GB and 1x 4GB. © Which approach is best. Thanks!

If that's the case then that's good news all round really, sensible policy.

Yep - I think it's quite likely that there'll be a number of changes to how the financial services operate in the UK. Infact, I think if it weren't for the Financial Crisis and "backlash on Bankers", we would have seen a charging system for Current Accounts across the board. I predict that within the next 10 years, the majority of people will pay a monthly charge for their bank account services. Asia Pacific is growing at a huge rate, and wealth creation is at an all time high. Markets such as Japan and the UK are quite stagnant and increasing profit margins on customers in these markets is much more difficult; especially in times where consumers are borrowing less and more aware of interest rates etc.

It appears to me as though institutions or organisations such as The Royal College of Nurses or the Association of Police Officers are forecasting such figures to try and protect themselves from cuts. Don't get me wrong, the cuts are inevitable, but by releasing such figures they can try and minimise their exposure to them. "Regulation is the enemy of enterprise" has it's foundations, too. The UK needs to re-allign itself as a centre of technological advancement, particularly in the technology sector (which appears to be growing nicely around Cambridge). Regulation is notoriously bad for technology companies, but for more traditional markets such as finance and construction, there's an argument that "smarter and more effective" regulation is required as appose to simply more of it.

Agreed completely - the difficulty sometimes is trying to put a value on their contribution to the whole economy. Sure, they earn a fortune (in some cases) but without the tax that they pay (and I understand that a few try and avoid this as much as possible through loopholes) we, as a country, wouldn't be able to employ as many teachers, police officers, nurses etc. In terms of HSBC in particular, the location of a HQ of a Financial Institution is more to do with political stability more than anything else, and considering the most stable of countries seem to have a similar agenda in terms of increasing taxation and regulation on banks (Europe, North America), I can't see any of the major banks moving any time soon. Oh, and to add, it's worth looking at the financial results posted by HSBC to see the proportion of profits which came from the UK; Asia Pacific was significantly stronger.

Just seen this snippet from the article: " Some higher earners with a full NI contribution track record are already receiving £200 a week or more. " It does seem to penalise those who have worked hard to ensure they've always contributed to National Insurance. I understand some of the benefits, but find it interesting that they've gone for a "middle ground". Perhaps not a massive issue in this case, but it does seem to suggest that going the extra mile will not reap its rewards. Just my take on it though.

Great article on this very subject in This is London - link: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/markets/article-23929809-move-to-honkers-would-be-bonkers.do

That's a difficult one though - although Barclays didn't directly receive funding from the Government, it could easily be argued that they benefited tremendously because of the bail-outs. In terms of the £6.5m bonus, it's just a case of what the market is paying, and I'd assume that the bonus was decided upon by the Board of Directors which are voted in by the shareholders. Corporate Democracy - the general public doesn't have a say in how Barclays' profits are used, but only in the market they operate in.

You're welcome If you're on FB or Twitter - like or follow us please