Doctors, lawyers, teahcers, intellectuals, businessmen, journalists:

[Burney]

"When private debt is twice the size of the real economy, when traders no longer understand the products they're trading, and banks are funding their own speculation rather than productive investment, something has gone grossly and badly wrong."

He has a point there tbf.

And if the finance sector is the 'lifeblood of the economy' then that economy certainly is out of balance. This is the same sector whose drunken excesses crashed the world economy ten years ago since when it has been bumping along the bottom. I know you blame the debtors rather the banks but the banks are supposed to be the clever chaps who should know better and are, apparently, the 'lifeblood' of our economy. It's enough to make your blood run cold.

I wouldn't disagree that the economy is unbalanced, but it's a peculiarly socialist idea that the way you rebalance it is by smashing the successful bit so it's a similar size to the less successful bit. Most people would suggest trying to boost the less successful bit so it gets nearer parity.

And please don't let's talk about 'the real economy'. It doesn't exist. It's not a thing. Anything that makes money is 'the economy'.

[Peter]

I wouldn't disagree that the economy is unbalanced, but it's a peculiarly socialist idea that the way you rebalance it is by smashing the successful bit so it's a similar size to the less successful bit. Most people would suggest trying to boost the less successful bit so it gets nearer parity.

And please don't let's talk about 'the real economy'. It doesn't exist. It's not a thing. Anything that makes money is 'the economy'.

I dont think he wants to smash the successful bit, or make it less successful. The issue is about who it is successful for.

But then you wouldnt care about such distinctions would you. Oh no. Far better to demonise poor Jeremy and indulge your lunatic, fanatical right wing inclinations.

You are a disgrace! And so on....

[Burney]

I dont think he wants to smash the successful bit, or make it less successful. The issue is about who it is successful for.

But then you wouldnt care about such distinctions would you. Oh no. Far better to demonise poor Jeremy and indulge your lunatic, fanatical right wing inclinations.

You are a disgrace! And so on....

He quite clearly does want to make it less successful. He's pretty explicit about that. If you seek to hamper a business' ability to make money, you ipso facto are seeking to make it less successful.

And who exactly is business supposed to be successful 'for' other than its shareholders? The state? Fück that.

[Peter]

He quite clearly does want to make it less successful. He's pretty explicit about that. If you seek to hamper a business' ability to make money, you ipso facto are seeking to make it less successful.

And who exactly is business supposed to be successful 'for' other than its shareholders? The state? Fück that.

Oh, I see. So the only people who will suffer are the shareholders?

Good. **** them. I hope they starve to death.

[Sir C]

Oh, I see. So the only people who will suffer are the shareholders?

Good. **** them. I hope they starve to death.

#socialism

[Peter]

#socialism

Pure self interest, Sir C. Theirs and mine.

[Burney]

Oh, I see. So the only people who will suffer are the shareholders?

Good. **** them. I hope they starve to death.

Well, no, not really. I would point you at how many people are employed by the financial services sector. How many mouths it feeds, how many mortgages it pays, how much disposable income it creates that is spent on goods and services that in turn employ, feed, clothe and house millions.

That's who suffers. Everyone.

[Peter]

Well, no, not really. I would point you at how many people are employed by the financial services sector. How many mouths it feeds, how many mortgages it pays, how much disposable income it creates that is spent on goods and services that in turn employ, feed, clothe and house millions.

That's who suffers. Everyone.

So it IS supposed to be successful for those other than the shareholders? I thought you said it wasnt.....

[redgunamo]

So it IS supposed to be successful for those other than the shareholders? I thought you said it wasnt.....

I think it's more that the shareholders is everybody. Or, as the man said, everyone has a share.

[Burney]

So it IS supposed to be successful for those other than the shareholders? I thought you said it wasnt.....

No. Simply that what is good for business is good for everyone.