Wednesday, September 22, 2010

The idiocy of Vince Cable

He can't see it himself, nor can the hordes of other Marxist/Social Democrats of the Lib Dems but in reality Vince Cable is just pissing into the wind over his belief that the public are up in arms over bankers bonuses. It wasn't the bankers that reformed the financial system removing control of it by the Bank of England and giving it to the useless FSA, it was the pseudo socialists of New Labour, a group of people Vince still believes in his heart of hearts that the Lib Dems should be allied with rather than the Tory "friends of the bankers" Party.

The Business Secretary told the Liberal Democrat conference in Liverpool that it was right that the public was angry about the bankers’ bonuses.
We're actually much more angry about the public sector ripping us off with pensions and wage increases as well as certain MP's dipping into our pockets over expenses. Yes we can see the bankers giving themselves large bonuses, but...And this is a big but... "THEY AREN'T DOING IT WITH OUR MONEY!!!" Nor could we see the point of bailing out the banks "WITH OUR MONEY" by the Labour party simply because the banks they bailed out were technically in Labour Heartlands.
That's where the public anger is aimed in my opinion, not at a bunch of people giving themselves bonuses for making a profit. Now I can sort of understand why people would be angry at the bankers in a publicly owned bank getting angry about bonuses being paid, at least until they pay back their debt to the taxpayer, but that's a different story to other banking bonuses, they simply don't affect us and it's not coming out of our pockets either.
What Vince cable is getting on his Marxist high horse about is the usual politics of envy as espoused by socialists the world over where they see people doing well out of a system that they couldn't hope to compete with in a million years. So their first act is to scream blue murder at the successful despite the fact that most of them are corrupt to the core as witness the expenses scandal. Cable and his little bunch of social democrats within the Lib Dems would do well to put the public sector back in order with its overpaid executives, and staff with their bonuses before even having the nerve to criticise the private sector for making profits and paying bonuses. The big difference from my point of view is, the private sector pays bonuses out of profits, the public sector pays them for performance, they take from the taxpayer and I don't know if they've noticed, but I haven't seen much in the way of an improvement in services to justify high salaries or bonus payouts.
Cable is barking up the wrong tree (as ever) but that's typical of the left in their own little fantasy world of evil capitalists, they always forget just whose money it is when it comes to spending ours on their major welfare schemes.
Reform public services, before even daring to criticise the private sector for doing what it's supposed too.

H/T Guido. 
Dr. Eamonn Butler biographer of Adam Smith says…
“Business Secretary Vince Cable is wrong on capitalism and wrong on Adam Smith. Unfortunately, we have a business secretary who doesn’t understand business and who misinterprets the founder of modern economics too. It is not capitalism that kills competition. It is regulation, and regulated capitalism. Adam Smith was perfectly clear… Where free competition reigns, businesses cannot keep out competitors. Government policy should focus on increasing competition, ensuring that trade is honest – and on reducing other regulation.”

2 annotations:

James Higham said...

Yet they can affect our daily lives with the stroke of a pen.

English Pensioner said...

When I read about what footballers are paid, and the size of their bonuses (which is always stated as "per week", probably more than half of the population can't multiply by 52), I get very angry, particularly as a lot of the money comes, indirectly, from my TV licence.
And it also makes me realise that many top businessmen are grossly underpaid, if you consider that they are often responsible for securing the jobs of large numbers of people, whereas a footballer has no responsibilities, apparently not even towards his wife.