Russell Brand.........

[pb21]

Attacking the bankers in the way Brand does, lets the politicians who were as negligent off the hook, and ignores the politicians' part in the whole debacle.

its not bankers per se, that is the issue but the environment and culture that banks operate in, i.e a rich powerful very small section of society that acts in ways that only benefit themselves at the expense of the vast majority of others.

So in that regard politicians are largely helpless, they rely on the backing of this section, without it they aren't going anywhere. If you attack that as obviously as Brand you get the full smear and FUD campaign.

 

[Guinness Boy]

obviously the question is how to stop these unsavoury types repeating their blag; you first

yourself.

You can't stop blaggers blagging or the prisons of this country would be empty. What would be nice would be if people from both sides of the political debate would stop making up causes for the recession that wholly suit their agenda. Then we might actually learn something. The Tories point wholly to Labour's spending for the deficit issues without bothering to mention the crisis was a global one with several tipping points. The left leave out Labour's spending and the over inflation of things like the domestic housing market and the outsourcing boom subsidised by foreign aid. There really was not one single cause. It certainly wasn't everyone who works or worked for a bank.

Global socialism wouldn't stop blagging either. The blaggers would simply move from chasing money to power. You should read "White Swans".

 

[Tooting Gull]

I used "vulnerable" because if I'd referenced the disabled again Herr Tubthumper's head would have exploded in a blast of ironic rage
.

It is interesting that the apologists for the banks started to give a sh!t about the vulnerable in society...ONLY when they thought it provided them with an excuse for the scandalous use of public billions propping up some failed casinos.

Most of the rest of us running our own businesses, of course, operate under different rules. Risk and reward, sink or swim, thrive or fail. No taking stupid risks, getting it wrong, and then getting bailed out anyway at huge cost to everyone.

 

[Hastings gull]

The thought of revolution can be scary. Most of us can see that the vast majority of the worlds population is being exploited by the few at the top - our quality of lives could and should be a lot better - but knowing that we still have food on the table, things could be worse. Not many of us would risk what we have for the unpredictable outcome of a revolution.

However, things are steadily getting worse for all of us. The corporations and wealthy ruling classes become more powerful as every day passes, by increasing their wealth and undemocratically introducing shady legislation such as TTIP and TISA, they have become untouchable. As the worlds population increases, as technological unemployment removes vital working class jobs, with inequality increasing at such a rate, revolution is inevitable.

Russell Brand is no leader of a revolution, but he certainly has great potential to inspire. We are reaching the end of capitalism, an economic system that was never going to last forever, so we need to brace ourselves and have serious debate about what's coming next. It will be scary, it will be exciting, but it is the next chapter of human history and an opportunity to fix so much that is wrong with the world.

I can not believe, even by your fairy-tale standards, that you think this is a realistic scenario. Do you seriously believe that all will be well in the future? There will be no greed, no malice, no jealousy, no poverty, no one will want what the other has, everyone will want to share with their neighbour etc etc. You could argue that it should be like this, but I am sure that this what idealistic people have argued for, for centuries - there is a little thing called human nature that would have to change first.
As for RB inspiring -I would suggest that he is own worst enemy; it could well be that some of what he says has merit, but do you seriously thank that he would have an influence on the general public? His way of taking his message is by forcing his way into banks -with the cameras present of course - and this is what puts people off. Do you seriously thank that the protest movement that eventually got us Falmer would have prevailed, had the fans adopted the same style. What gains respect is a protest that is determined but above all dignified and controlled.

 

[rogersix]

yourself.

You can't stop blaggers blagging or the prisons of this country would be empty. What would be nice would be if people from both sides of the political debate would stop making up causes for the recession that wholly suit their agenda. Then we might actually learn something. The Tories point wholly to Labour's spending for the deficit issues without bothering to mention the crisis was a global one with several tipping points. The left leave out Labour's spending and the over inflation of things like the domestic housing market and the outsourcing boom subsidised by foreign aid. There really was not one single cause. It certainly wasn't everyone who works or worked for a bank.

Global socialism wouldn't stop blagging either. The blaggers would simply move from chasing money to power. You should read "White Swans".

so you dont know and you've given up, fair dos.
the politicos and banking execs set the culture; it woz them wot dunnit.
give us a quick precis of this bird book then

 

[Guinness Boy]

so you dont know and you've given up, fair dos.

No, I told you it had multiple causes and will inevitably happen again, just as right now as I type, somewhere in the world a crack addict is committing a robbery and an accountant fraud.

give us quick precis of this bird book then

(Auto) biography of three generations of women in communist China. Starvation, stupidity, death and bullying abound. Mao stays powerful and doesn't die, has nice palace and corrupt wife.

 

[father_and_son]

I tend to agree. Brand is highlighting a number of important issues which are affecting vulnerable people and all a lot of folk want to do is make snipes at him. Odd behaviour. It is very easy for dullards with comfy lifestyles to make a dig at someone who is actually giving some time to a campaign. And it is piss easy for someone who has a few pennies to give some money but donating your time requires more effort. So what if you dont like him, just concentrate on the issues he raises....it really is this simple. But then sniping is such a middle class wanky thing to do people probably aspire to it.

On the contrary HT... its easy for those who already have a butt-load of money in the bank to give up their time for a "good cause" (see any number of "UN Ambassadors" for examples of the sort of idle rich idealist that some people find it oh-so-easy to dislike!). For those who have to work for a living, time is something they can't be quite so generous with and when they do, it's a greater sacrifice than someone who takes time out from their busy schedule of doing nothing.

 

[rogersix]

No, I told you it had multiple causes and will inevitably happen again, just as right now as I type, somewhere in the world a crack addict is committing a robbery and an accountant fraud.



(Auto) biography of three generations of women in communist China. Starvation, stupidity, death and bullying abound. Mao stays powerful and doesn't die, has nice palace and corrupt wife.

inevitable? that sounds crushingly depressing, and you say you havent given up?
my grasp of economics is irresponsibly poor so correct me where im wrong but;
after the great depression were not the banks regulated to ensure no replication
of that trauma, and then thatch/bliar unwound the regs, bungin the people a
coupla bob whilst they were at it?

that book sounds a bit dreary, have you tried "my booky wook", it may or may
not be insightful

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

My point again was that the tedious middle classes would hardly be envious of someone like RB -he is far too annoying for that. What would concern them far more, might be his hypocrisy, and "champagne socialist" is the best that they could come up with, as you sneeringly observe.

Oh come on. I bet many suburban types secretly envy Brand's good looks, wit, attention, drug taking, shagging, cash and general life of chaos, fun and danger. I'm sure many bored housewives think of him as their clapped out overweight husband climbs into bed and falls asleep.

 

[Guinness Boy]

inevitable? that sounds crushingly depressing, and you say you havent given up?
my grasp of economics is irresponsibly poor so correct me where im wrong but;
after the great depression were not the banks regulated to ensure no replication
of that trauma, and then thatch/bliar unwound the regs, bungin the people a
coupla bob whilst they were at it?

that book sounds a bit dreary, have you tried "my booky wook", it may or may
not be insightful

Your grasp of global politics is even worse. If we had the most highly regulated financial services sector in the world no one would do business with us because, as you point out, these people are blaggers, but none-the-less blaggers who can do their trading with India or Singapore or the US just by getting up a bit early and switching on a computer.

 

[rogersix]

Your grasp of global politics is even worse. If we had the most highly regulated financial services sector in the world no one would do business with us because, as you point out, these people are blaggers, but none-the-less blaggers who can do their trading with India or Singapore or the US just by getting up a bit early and switching on a computer.

so you have given up then

 

[Guinness Boy]

so you have given up then

on getting any sense out of you, yes.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Your grasp of global politics is even worse. If we had the most highly regulated financial services sector in the world no one would do business with us because, as you point out, these people are blaggers, but none-the-less blaggers who can do their trading with India or Singapore or the US just by getting up a bit early and switching on a computer.

So why doesn't everyone simply swarm to the country with the least regulated banks then? There is a reason, and the reason is because it isn't just loose regulation which attracts people.

 

[matthew]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sl7ojcIj8E

Thought this episode of 'the trews' was quite good...

 

[Guinness Boy]

So why doesn't everyone simply swarm to the country with the least regulated banks then? There is a reason, and the reason is because it isn't just loose regulation which attracts people.

It is if you want to play the system which is what he was specifically asking about.

Of course plenty of people want to trade in a regulated or balanced environment. Depends on your aversion to risk. Doubt Brand wants to talk about risk adverse trading though, he couldn't even turn up at an office that had traders in.

 

[pb21]

he couldn't even turn up at an office that had traders in.

So what?

 

[symyjym]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sl7ojcIj8E

Thought this episode of 'the trews' was quite good...

Blimey, I didn’t realise that Brand instigated the report that exposed the CIA.

 

[El Presidente]

Socialist nonsense is still socialist nonsense whoever is spouting it and I say that as an ex-Labour voter. People, Brand included, need to ask themselves how much worse off the poor and disabled of this country would be if the economy had been allowed to collapse further a la the 1930s, and yes, NOT bailing the banks out would have led to exactly that. But, yes, the moment Brand pulled the Andrew Sachs stunt he showed he'd do anything for publicity. Kind of invalidates his future arguments, as does his refusal to stand for parliament when challenged, ironically, by one the disabled he constantly invokes.

The world is, I believe, still turning after Lehman and Bear Sterns went to the wall.

There's a world of difference, IMO, between the people who work at banks with a 9-5 role, and 'bankers' whose contempt for those they work for and with led to the $700 billion bailout in the US, and the huge costs incurred here too by the UK taxpayer. It would have happened irrespective of whether you vote Labour or Tory too, so cheap political point scoring by some on this thread is way off the mark.

 

[JCL666]

Your grasp of global politics is even worse. If we had the most highly regulated financial services sector in the world no one would do business with us because, as you point out, these people are blaggers, but none-the-less blaggers who can do their trading with India or Singapore or the US just by getting up a bit early and switching on a computer.

I get what you're saying.

In simple terms...
There are some people who blagged the system and contributed towards a global financial crisis.
Their blagging included manipulating elements of the system in order to make themselves a load of money.


Ok cool. Are they in prison yet? Do they have very long sentences? because if the sentence should reflect the impact their activities had on other people, they shouldn't be let out for a while.

Which leads me to this..... There is a general feeling of lets blame someone for something. As has been pointed out a lot recently, immigrants get the brunt of it.

Regardless of whether or not migration is to blame for anything. We all know that some blaggers (lets call them bank employees), did some shit for their own gain, and screwed up the lives of a lot of people.

So yeah, I'm happy that a guy who has made millions by just mucking about, and making a lot of people laugh is now spending some of his time highlighting unsavoury things about some of the blaggers and the organisations (BANKS) where these they worked (and also gave them the tools, opportunities to commit those blags).

 

[Seagull27]

Five quotes and no one's managed to answer a simple question. Would the vulnerable of this country be worse off if the banks had not been bailed out. Yes / no. Who's first?

I certainly wouldn't disagree with you that the banks needed to be bailed out. But isn't the concern more with the fact that the banks then continued to pay huge bonuses to their CEO's almost immediately afterwards?

If the banks had agreed to pay back what they borrowed from the taxpayer before they paid out any bonuses, I think a lot more people would be comfortable with the situation.