Reply to: King: Banks need to admit extent of bad debts before recovery

[Martin@AS Financial]

but the set up costs would be 2k plus i'd imagine.

£995 I believe.

[moggy]

It is possible but only if you have a 40% deposit. There are currently 1.99% 2 year fixed available in the market.

but the set up costs would be 2k plus i'd imagine.

[Martin@AS Financial]

For Gawd's sake we've been recapitalising the banks for the past four years! It's lies and spin and Merv has his own agenda.

Historically when the BOE rate was 4-5%, you could get a mortgage for +1.5% or so on top of that. Try getting a mortgage on 2% now!

It's just one mega rip-off.

It is possible but only if you have a 40% deposit. There are currently 1.99% 2 year fixed available in the market.

[OwlHoot]

How would that compare with a private water company, say, staffed by poorly paid, badly motivated, average intelligence jobsworths?

Because, dummy, if the company fails, for whatever reason, then some other more successful company can put in a bid to replace them.

Obviously one way to avoid that is to have motivated, skilled employees. So it's in a private company's interest as much as that of one of Sasguru's public sector organisations who he says have learned so much all about management etc since the 70s.

[Lockhouse]

For Gawd's sake we've been recapitalising the banks for the past four years! It's lies and spin and Merv has his own agenda.

Historically when the BOE rate was 4-5%, you could get a mortgage for +1.5% or so on top of that. Try getting a mortgage on 2% now!

It's just one mega rip-off.

[doodab]

That argument is as daft as a brush.

All those examples attracted the very best for specific cutting edge projects, and most had/have public money lavished on them for a specific political goal often of vital national interest.

How would that compare with a National Water Board office, say, staffed by poorly paid, badly motivated, average intelligence civil servants? Not trying to belittle them - I guess most of us would be in those categories in the wrong circumstances. But you see the difference?

Do try and be realistic.

That argument is as daft as a brush.

How would that compare with a private water company, say, staffed by poorly paid, badly motivated, average intelligence jobsworths? Not trying to belittle them - I guess most of us would be in those categories in the wrong circumstances. But you see the similarity?

Do try and be realistic.

[doodab]

Bletchley park.

And the GPO. They built the telephone system as well.

[centurian]

Though I suppose another option would have been a radioactive hole where Berlin used to be, had the war in Europe not finished in May 1945.

Yep, for all of our struggles against Hitler - Dunkirk, D-day, Enigma, Battle of Britain, most of it would have made no difference to the end result as Little Boy and Fat Man were intended to be dropped on Germany.

[Robinho]

NASA put man on the moon

For the small price of 170 billion USD (2005).

[Robinho]

King does speak a lot of sense at times.

Shame he never employed that sense during his tenure.

[OwlHoot]

I have worked for the "best" private sector blue chips in my time (pharmas, banks and insurance mainly), but beyond a certain size they all degenerated into inefficient bureacracies.

Sure, but in that case enterprising staff with the necessary skills and experience have the option of branching off and forming new startups. How is that possible in an equally sluggish public bureaucracy?

We have learned a lot about the art and science of motivation and incentivisation since the 70s

The most important lesson learned since the 70s is never, never allow a monopoly in anything, even in areas like utilities which one might imagine don't lend themselves naturally to privatisation. Otherwise the bolshy bastards will be constantly holding the country to ransom, just as they did then.

[vetran]

Though I suppose another option would have been a radioactive hole where Berlin used to be, had the war in Europe not finished in May 1945.

Probably not Berlin more likely a lesser but untouched city, Hiroshima & Nagasaki were chosen for maximum shock value and had been less affected by bombing.

I agree with SAS

Its not the people its the organisation. I have seen great things done in office over a kebab shop and in huge multinationals.

[sasguru]

That argument is as daft as a brush.

All those examples attracted the very best for specific cutting edge projects, and most had/have public money lavished on them for a specific political goal often of vital national interest.

How would that compare with a National Water Board office, say, staffed by poorly paid, badly motivated, average intelligence civil servants? Not trying to belittle them - I guess most of us would be in those categories in the wrong circumstances. But you see the difference?

Do try and be realistic.

The argument is not daft. You're proving my point. The problem is therefore not that the public sector doesn't work necessarily but that people aren't incentivised and motivated enough.
The same things happen in the private sector.
I have worked for the "best" private sector blue chips in my time (pharmas, banks and insurance mainly), but beyond a certain size they all degenerated into inefficient bureacracies.
We have learned a lot about the art and science of motivation and incentivisation since the 70s - that is more important than whether something is public or private sector, IMO
Ask the people who run Wandsworth Council or the Open University how the manage to motivate people on low salaries to perform outstandingly. That's management talent.

[OwlHoot]

NASA put man on the moon, the Los Alamos project created the atomic bomb, Bletchley broke the Enigma code, DARPA invented the internet, CERN the WWW.

Seems like the public sector can be pretty effective.

HTH, BIDI.

That argument is as daft as a brush.

All those examples attracted the very best for specific cutting edge projects, and most had/have public money lavished on them for a specific political goal often of vital national interest.

How would that compare with a National Water Board office, say, staffed by poorly paid, badly motivated, average intelligence civil servants? Not trying to belittle them - I guess most of us would be in those categories in the wrong circumstances. But you see the difference?

Do try and be realistic.

[DodgyAgent]

Many companies were run with a profit that went into the exchequer and the costs of services such as water was a lot cheaper.

BP
Rented Housing
Roads
Thomas Cook
Water
Electricity
Midland Bank etc etc

so all these companies are run better by the public sector than by the private sector?