Economy & Banks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_growth

Theories and models of economic growth is pretty simple.

We will get unrestricted growth once I rig my perpetual motion device to a dynamo and solve all the worlds problems.

I will also be only referred to as "Our Dear Solver of All Problems". or ODSoAP for short

it's just really fucking fiddly...I'll do it tomorrow.

Posting here because I just UTFS and found this thread instead of dumping my query in AQA. Apologies if this has already been done to death.

For years Gordon Brown told us that the years of economic boom and bust were over and that we were on the track towards long term, sustainable economic growth. Of course we all know how wrong he turned out to be but the underlying ideal of long term sustainable economic growth still underpins a lot of the economic discourse I hear in the news. I understand how growth in the economy is linked to jobs and incomes and hopefully increases in standards of living, however what I don't understand is how long term, indefinite growth can ever be sustainable when it is ultimately dependent on a scarce supply of resources.

I can see all sorts of partial solutions (such as efficiency or innovation) that might keep any prospect of imminent collapse a little beyond the horizon but they don't solve the problem forever.

Presumably this is something that our pre-eminent economists will have thought deeply about and I'd be intrigued to learn more. I wonder if people could point me towards some sources (preferably non-technical) where I could read up on how perpetual growth can be made to work as a keystone of our economic policy?

relevant nef link here,

Tim Jackson argued that we must not return to the growth-based economy of previous times because we cannot move fast enough in technological terms to deliver ourselves from financial catastrophe, from resource catastrophe and from environmental catastrophe, simply by keeping our existing institutions. He highlighted what he saw as the three main tasks necessary to create a well-being economy: to establish the limits of our economy (particularly the resource limits); fix the economics (so well-being is delivered by the economy, so institutions do not rely on relentless consumption growth, and so the macroeconomy does not collapse as soon as people stop spending money on the high street; and change the social logic (the assumption that we are just selfish, materialistic, individualistic consumers).

Tim Jackson has written a related book about this, 'Prosperity without Growth'

http://media.boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/1168cbCOMIC-ld-income-distribution.jpg

If you had the choice of equalising income inequality or joining the 1% which would you really pick?

Its not that I don't agree more income egalitarian societies are better (to a point), its just I think its perhaps an effect.. not the cause.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/dec/17/uk-banks-benefit-from-massive-state-subsidies

I'll answer that when you offer me the money tommy

Someone must know someone who stands to enter the 1% via this

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=in_the_back&issue=1353

Surely a fucking waste & entirely unnecessary.

If you had the choice of equalising income inequality or joining the 1% which would you really pick?
I would see the disparity between the top and the bottom reduced.

£150k per year puts you in the 1% in the UK.

However, it's not a choice that i would or could ever be faced with - the short of change needed to bring a more equal distribution of wealth is decades in the making.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/dec/17/uk-banks-benefit-from-massive-state-subsidies

What a great position to be in. Imagine if you had a huge line of credit at the casino, you could keep everything you won, and if you ever lost so much that you maxed out your credit, some other schmuck would be stuck with the bill. Party time!

until someone takes you out back and kneecaps you.

The notion that individual conviction and bravery is a #MassiveFail when compared to a machine gun nest seems obvious and trite to us today. Strangely enough, though, when it comes to prevalent notions of market behavior it feels like we’re still in 1936. What I mean is that there is still a dominant belief in individual decision-making as the most effective route to successful investing, that if we could just learn a little bit more about Company X or Sector Y we will win the day. Is your individual knowledge and conviction level in Company X important for investing success? Absolutely, in exactly the same way that physical and psychological bravery is important for war-fighting success. Still more important, though, is the strength and cohesion of the groups that share your investment philosophy. Not your specific investment opinions, any more than one soldier has the same amount and type of instantiated bravery as another soldier in his unit, but the coherence of investment goals and operational practices across your fellow market participants in a particular market segment. **This is the core insight of Adaptive Investing – that investment success requires a rigorous analysis of both individual AND group dynamics, and that modern evolutionary theory is a better place to find the tools for that analysis than modern economic theory. Ragtag crews, no matter how brave or informed, tend not to do very well in war or markets. **If I’m going into battle or taking a market exposure … yes, I want to have personal conviction and information. But even more so I want to know if I have the intra-group and inter-group dynamics on my side. God is always on the side of the big battalions, said Voltaire, and that sounds like pretty good investment advice, too.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-22/construction-robert-capa

Help man launder over $150bn in a ponzi scheme
Fine received $1.7bn

No individual executives accused of wrongdoing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25641476
Well can't see that happening again

Community banking anyone?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/19/bank-salford-revolution-local-finance?CMP=twt_gu&commentpage=1

There have always been members of the community willing to lend uncreditworthy individuals money at competitive rates of interest.
Only two working legs needed as collateral.

By 'community' I think you really just mean 'not for profit'

Societies that restrict its members from taking advantage of each other through usury seem to be more successful.

But then why not ban it altogether?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/0/23448808

at worst "for local profit" perhaps?

a few banks around the world are halting large cash withdrawals

time to prepare for credit crunch 2 ?

If it's HSBC, then it's probably more to do with the money laundering regulations than a full on credit crunch, but fingers crossed.

russian banks
a few in china and hsbc
lloyds tsb was just their aging 1970's servers creaking !!

Is it easy to change an old Current Account to a new one at a new bank?

If yes, which bank:

• doesn't use any stupid fucking security dongle for online banking
  
• doesn't automatically deny international 'card present' transactions
  

changing bvanks these days is meant to be relatively painless
a couple of days process the banks do all the work
some new government legislation

as for which bank ? as has been proven recently they're all as bad as each other

nationwide ? do it differently with a building society ?

The bank of DST is good. Very friendly and ethical.

-ve interest rate though
don't leave it on deposit too long