louisiana

DJKQ, I don't see proper regulation happening anytime soon. Back in 2006 and 2007, I couldn't believe how in the thrall of big business/banking (I'm small business) Brown was. It was a love affair. And every party has that love affair. It's still going on! In early 2007, my mum visited (literally the blue moon event), and I told her how bonkers property was. But then in her homeland, similar things were happening. We were just ignoring it, it was so preposterous. You could really see the whole pile of cards about to come crashing down. When we had the revelations on CDS's etc., well, quelle surprise. It really wasn't that much of a surprise. But I'm not seeing anything other than BAU on either side of the Atlantic, from government. We might think back to the shock we experienced at the time when various announcements were made.... but has this had any actual effect? For example, in terms of separating retail banking from some of the more casino aspects of the sector? Or any other actual measures to regulate what is going on? I mean, the recent ratios testing stuff was just a complete pile of dog hair. Edited to remove a rogue 's'.

I'm sure someone's already doing war-zone walking holidays... :)

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I wouldn't argue against you Lousiana - if it is > true then it does maen that we all need to pull > together and the 'dismantling' of the welfare > state as we know is inevitable. I think on the > upside technology may rescue us yet...maybe I'll believe it when I see it quids. Most people upbeat about tech as the saviour of us all don't work in tech. Technology moves pretty damn slow. See how much progress we've made on batteries, for example. 'Planes cannot as yet fly on veggie oil, and PV systems are reliant for energy storage on deep-cycle battery technology used in caravans in the ?1950/1960s.

Quids, we might be able to limp along were it not for China. Everyone owes China. Especially the US. Big time. What if China decides not to play ball on debt? According to clients of mine who have a substantial Chinese (and international) presence, it's almost impossible to get money out of China. China for these firms is a cost centre, not anything else, 'cos profit taking (for such firms) is well-nigh impossible. China has millions of PhDs to throw at anything, and they think long term. They are also creating some of the most significant environmental issues, owing to sheer numbers. Check out their stats on coal, on cars, on anything. We are only seeing the beginning of the Chinese issue and how this will impact on the world. We need to factor in China.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > We, the west, badly need some significant economic > growth. It's not going to happen, boyo :-$ The 'perpetual growth' models are bust. See population. See peak oil. See peak everything. And forget the economists. They never saw it coming (says she with a UCL economics degree).

So where's the link, waynetta? Or is this all a bit hush-hush, as it were :)

"Fortunately unlike other web sites to the South I can post knowing I'll get a fair debate without any unecessary censorship. It was the SS who did this in Nazi Germany (excuse my poke at our local webfascist)" So is the OP referring to a specific local web fascist here? Do tell... And yes, Godwin's in the first post is brilliant. It kind of preempts.... everything.

So, Spokes-woman, can you tell us something about the holiday you went on? I'm assuming you did go on one...

Yes, what PeckhamRose and Applespider said. I'm all in favour of small people doing nice things, well, but the whole first-time poster recommending something is to be taken with a pinch of salt.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > and my argument was that seriously wealthy people > WHO HAVE DONE it themselves aren't on the whole > just lucky - that's all. No - ohh they're great, > they're my heros; they should be what we all > aspire to. Fairly predictably - this has been ment > with > > 1) "Lots of people inherit their wealth" - er, no > sh1t sherlock > 2) "God what a narrow aspiration...who'd drive the > busses. you shallow person"Was never put forward > as an aspiration for all just a fact. > 3) "bankers are all w*nkers", may or not be true > and gawd knows we've raked over it a million > times, but not what I was talking about > > I'd reiterate - self-made millionairres may not > all or always be pleasant, moral or anything to > aspire to bUT they've by and large had the balls, > drive, willingness to take risks and yes a bit of > luck to get there. Most peole don't even try- and > that's not a problem, they don't have to, many > don't want to BUT they can't just dismiss those > that do and make it as 'being lucky'. I'd argue that there are many, many business people who work just as hard, take just as many risks launching and running their own firms, and don't make it big. Why? Frequently, they are not brilliant business people. But often, they are just unlucky. For example, they got majorly ripped off by a shark sent in by 3i, on IP (a condition of venture financing), and couldn't afford to pay cash up front for a 6-figure IP court case. (You *do* have to have serious money to defend IP.) For example, they got smashed up in an accident. For example, two or three other, larger firms stole their IP and they didn't have the resources to do anything about it. For example, an important employee left and took all their IP, client lists etc. etc. to a larger competitor, and they lost momentum. For example, they got hit by a car while crossing the road in Bloomsbury and suffered major brain trauma, and were never the same again. Sometimes a business partner (who is sometimes even their brother) shits on them big-time. Sometimes their wife/husband develops MS and they have to reduce their 80-hour 7-day week. Sometimes several such bad shit things happen to one person/firm in a matter of a few years. And often they just keep on bouncing back, but they don't make it big. Whether any of these things happen to your or your firm may be largely down for luck (with in some cases an element of judgement - for example, should you have made that seemingly excellent hire?) But I don't think it can be argued that these people don't work hard, haven't worked hard, decade after decade, or don't take well-informed risks on a daily basis. Many of them have their homes on the line. Some of them encounter good luck, some of them encounter bad luck. Many of them persist through one bad luck experience after another, decade after decade, and some of those come out ahead. But it's a fact that not all the people who work hard and take risks in business can come out ahead of everyone else doing the same! Not even most of them.(Check the maths.) I've seen plenty of people who work bloody hard running their own businesses, who have not made it big. I have seen a few who have gone through various failures/wrong courses, before ultimately achieving considerable success. Business is a learning process. I would say there is no significant difference between these two groups other than luck, and in quite a few cases, degree of ruthlessness. If you are prepared to shit on others, it's actually quite easy to make quite a lot of money if you're not unlucky. I have seen quite a few others, who are incredibly wealthy and have dabbled in businesses belonging to their families, or have merely continued the family business (such as Greek shipping) that their grandfather founded. I have the most respect for those who have started with nothing (no great education, no parents at home to pay all the bills, no family to 'invest' six or seven figure sums in their kids' projects) and have achieved a moderate degree of success: and for me, that's not about money and the Sunday Times rich list, it's about being a respected figure, being known for something that's interesting or innovative, being known to be a good employer, contributing something to society. I think those things are of greater value than a pile of Monopoly money often achieved by doing things to other people that would cause many of us sleepless nights.

Hi Ian We were also on the walk on Sunday, and had a chat with you. I'm a bit puzzled by your two bandwidth references. Unless the people concerned have posted video or hi-qual audio, I don't imagine there's any kind of bandwidth issue, particularly considering it might generate at most a few dozen views (from people who attended the walk). Each image is likely to be 25-50KB, with a max of 200KB (if the uploader hasn't been careful), no? Isn't the Web all about linking?

Pearson Jeremy made the claim, apparently in all seriousness: "HSBC moving to Hong Kong". *That* claim was nonsense, as we all know. To make a claim of a trend on the basis of two examples where one is false and the other is a "possibly" seems pretty non-rational. Something which you know all about. I hear waynetta's got a troll fest planned for the Pearson-Tarot axis B) Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > HSBC moving to Hong Kong, Barclays possibly moving > to New York...

And then they all had sex with their dogs, which is why registered breed dogs look like their owners. (Have you noticed how Crufts winners seem to have names as ridiculous as the British upper classes? And similar problems with small gene pools.) http://www.pubquizhelp.com/misc/past_winners_crufts.html

Craig83 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What's the problem with the school using the park? > Its not like there's not enough space over there > eh? The people who are winging about it must be > on the social anyway - why else would they be > concerned with school groups using the park during > working hours? What harm can they do its not as if > teachers are going to be holding Burger King > eating conferences over there and telling children > to litter the place with half squeezed packets of > ketchup is it? Quite the contrary. If your gonna > live in nappy valley folks you gotta get used to > the idea that you'll see kids having fun sometime > even if it is in your beloved park. > > And before anyone comes back with 'oh actually I'm > self employed and when I'm not working intensely > from my study with PR park views I like to > selfishly immerse myself in school child free > pastures' - take your easy job and do it in East > Dulwich park with your laptop. You'll probably > have a more pleasurable afternoon Wow, what a bundle of apoplexy. Is the daily 9 to 5 (or is it 8 to 8 these days?) getting you down, old bean? I'd take some beta blockers and calm down if I were you. Perhaps join the ranks of self employed who work when they like and get to amble around the park every day. And yes, it is very social :)

... and the ones who go to the school that daddy says, and do the uni degree that daddy says, and do everything that daddy says, because they're terrified of not getting all of daddy's money... while absolutely hating daddy and his schoolgirl-style girlfriend. Not much risk-taking there.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > HAL9000 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Spot on DJKQ. My work brings me into contact > with > > the rich - almost every one of the ones I've > known > > was in the right place at the right time. > > Shakespeare summed it up beautifully in Julius > > Caesar: > > > > "There is a tide in the affairs of men. Which > > taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; > Omitted, > > all the voyage of their life is bound in > shallows > > and in miseries." > > > > > Cock. I've met and worked for plenty of people who > have made some serious money on their own back, > including a couple in the top 20 Times list...and > they all take risks and many have turned their > backs on relatively prosperous conventional > careers (wage slavery as they see it)or > no=prospect dead end jobs. 99% of people just > haven't got those balls. There are of course also plenty in the top 10, 50, 100 200 that, say, were born wealthy and happened to marry the sister of a very rich person who have them top jobs on corporate boards, so double whammy (very nice chap despite wealth), or, say, happened to be the grand-daughter of the inventor of a packaging product (likewise).

I recently had to travel to Purfleet. The highlight of Purfleet is the level crossing. Nuf said. Some years ago I visited a road-side pub near Southend. I was asked to leave because I was wearing a leather jacket. Apparently women wearing leather jackets are a recipe for violence in Essex.

womanofdulwich Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > my boss earns ?150k plus, his wife works part time > and maybe earns ?5k, he has an 8 year old daughter > and says he could not afford another child. ( > because of school fees). Everyone has different > values.Using his values we would die out pretty > quickly. Is there any way we can precipitate this? B)

MP, some (many) developers I know only use Mac for online banking etc. (i.e. for things that really matter.) At least you can then be fairly sure you don't have any nasty key-logging etc. bits of malware running. I use AVG on an old PC/music server and Mac otherwise.

'Dulwich station' and Dulwich College. On air now, BBC Radio 4. Wodehouse did of course go to Dulwich College. I'm sure others have more info.

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > louisiana Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > In any case, HSBC > > has had a substantial presence in HK for many > > years.d. > > The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation? > Never Funnily enough the HSBC building on the Bund in Shanghai does not belong to HSBC and is occupied by a completely different bank. So things not always what they seem.

Well, the *former chief exec* of HSBC said he moved to HK earlier this year. Which is not quite the same as the entire ant hill that is HSBC towers at C Wharf moving to HK. In any case, HSBC has had a substantial presence in HK for many years. Meanwhile Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu says it's moving its HQ to London from Switzerland.

Captain Scarlet Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Captain Scarlet Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Such hostile comments!.........I > > concur.....nothing worse then seeing people > > dressed in sportswear!! > > when not exercising!!!...then going out posing > > trying to look cool!!! > > just like that advert on the telly!...fat guy > > going gym pretending his keeping fit! > > yes I often have a chuckle when drinking in my > > local bar and seeing the so-called keep fit > > brigade walking inB) > > well...I dont like to brag...but Bennaton > shirt,George Amani leather jacket and > trousers,timberland shoes.. > whatever takes my fancy really.....but never a > tracksuit...or hoodie type thingys....yuk! Ratty brands and incoherent English. Such a good look.

Pearson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ^ I don't buy into the post either. > But hardly a friendly or warranted reply from an > 'old-time' poster. As you will have noted Pearson, I don't tolerate fools gladly or otherwise. 'Old time'? You make me sound like a pensioner.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mick Mac Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Yes - a dull job for a dull boy. I get your > drift. > > Not at all - you misconstrue! > > > And Loz - it's 'the cuts'. I was biscuits, but > then biscuits and coffee were merged. Is that like a dunked Rich Tea Biscuit? (kind of floppy and in danger of falling over)