So, I’m talking about peer to peer lending and a firm that’s gone bust. Disintermediation is great but:
The idea at the heart of peer-to-peer lending is great. The thing the internet has enabled us all to do is disintermediate. We don’t have to gain our classified ads along with the local newspaper any more, we get them on Ebay and Gumtree. Buying car insurance doesn’t require a visit to an office – and thus isn’t limited to the choice of those who have invested in a chain of offices. Why not bring that same force to lending and match up willing lenders with willing borrowers online instead of having to use an expensive retail branch network?
There’s nothing wrong with the idea at all, except except to think the intimidiation is the difficult bit of banking. In fact, it’s the easy bit.
” think the intimidiation is ”
The intimidation is – got that loan repayment Guv? Like Bill ‘ere to ‘ave a look at your kneecaps?
Should be intermediation of course….
I was asked for my opinion on a maximum wage. They asked for a short piece.
So it’s like a sawn-off both barrels.
The idea of a maximum wage is as close to drivel as we’ll hear outside a Greta Thunberg speech. ……
It’s not so much that they’ve got to – or someone does – to the families of those who died It’s that there’s also a liability to those who cannot use the panes they’ve bought.
That Boeing (NYSE:BA) has a problem with the 737 Max is obvious enough. The Lion and then Ethiopian crashes tell us that much. But there’s not necessarily a bigger problem here, merely uncertainty about how big the problem might be. Or, even, whether there is a problem to be uncertain about.
That being, well, airlines which have bought the 737 Max can’t currently use them. Or at least in many places they cannot. This implies costs for said airlines – who is responsible for those costs? That depends on how the blame for the 737 Max problems is apportioned in the end of course. But I think we all know there’s a significant risk it’s going to be Boeing itself.
That’s not the end of it, though. If blame is assigned to Boeing, then sure, the compensation bill to the families of those who died will end up in Seattle, where it may or may not be insured, but probably is. But what about those losses of airlines which cannot fly the planes they’ve bought and still must pay for? And the costs of renting replacement planes to keep the schedules going?
It could end up being the much more expensive problem,
Go here and then do that.
It’s a public consultation that you will enjoy ‘coz you get to tell ’em.
There’s a possible legal dodginess in the payoff to the shag – when and why and election funds.
But other than that, what’s actually illegal here?
Maybe not a good one but it is little:
Because Donald Trump Has Friends
Brexit is about to give us a problem with this, though. Karl Marx was right: wages won’t rise when there’s spare labour available, his “reserve army” of the unemployed. The capitalist doesn’t have to increase pay to gain more workers if there’s a squad of the starving eager to labour for a crust. But if there are no unemployed, labour must be tempted away from other employers, and one’s own workers have to be pampered so they do not leave. When capitalists compete for the labour they profit from, wages rise.
Britain’s reserve army of workers now resides in Wroclaw, Vilnius, Brno, the cities of eastern Europe. The Polish plumbers of lore did flood in and when the work dried up they ebbed away again. The net effect of Brexit will be that British wages rise as the labour force shrinks and employers have to compete for the sweat of hand and brow.
Back in The Times.
On the subject of stagnant wages, the rate for these sorts of things hasn’t changed in 15 years. No wonder we hear so much about earnings – it’s journalists who are affected.
We Britons, when we go to the supermarket will have all of the finest foods in the world laid out for us at the cheapest possible price. Isn’t that a tragedy.
I start at about 20 minutes in.
Back to opinion: I’m such an extremist that I insist the very existence of the European Union is a bad idea and that our leaving might be the first tumbling brick which brings the whole edifice down. Yet it is still factually true that the Brexit process is in a bit of a bind. Among those who have to decide, those parliamentarians, there is no majority in favor of any action or deal. And yet the default, without such positive decision making, is that Britain leaves without a deal at all, and reverts to WTO terms.
Myself, I’m shivering with anticipation even as I note that rather a lot of my countrymen disagree.
Glad they did put the link in there.
But then if Owen Jones knew a bit he wouldn’t be what he is, would he?
To be able to make this point again.
It is true that I don’t – as you may well have realised – share Owen Jones’s vision of what the good society would be. But if he wants us to be more Nordic, it really does mean we should become entirely the opposite of everything Jones urges — radically free market, capitalist and near entirely fiscally devolved societies. I’d still object to the tax rates but bring on the rest, quite frankly.
The value of gradually acquiring new places to write, leaving old ones behind perhaps, is that the few greatest hits as logical or propaganda points can be rolled out again in new clothes and guises. They also develop a little. It is, for example, only recently that I found out this:
However that misses the point that underneath those taxes, the Scandinavians are more free market, even more capitalist, than we are or even the US is. Their corporations are indeed more efficient – because they are deliberately structured to not just emphasise but exalt the shareholder interest.
Isn’t it odd that the literature does indeed state that the Nordic corporate board system is “most efficient” while no one at all recommends that we should all be using it?