Britain risks turning into France under Labour government, warns Bank of America

Economists at investment bank say proposed labour market regulations would seriously hamper growth if Ed Miliband wins general election.
A Labour victory in May's general election would lead to the UK economy coming to resemble struggling France, one of the world's leading investment banks has warned.
Bank of America Merrill Lynch said that Ed Miliband would "seriously interfere with the private sector", binding businesses in red tape and discouraging investment in the UK.
In a research note published on Friday, The economists predicted that a Labour-led government, governing alone or in a left-wing coalition, would mean an economy structured like France, which has strict laws on working hours, minimum wages and contracts.
As a result, the UK would be less likely to grow strongly. The research, from Bank of America's European economists, is the latest warning that a Labour government would be bad for business.
"A left wing coalition around Labour, would, in our view, continue to deliver on fiscal austerity, albeit a milder version than the Tories, with the accompanying cyclical headwind that this entails, while embarking on structural changes which could in the medium run reduce the appeal of the UK as a business location and trigger, ultimately, a deterioration in potential GDP growth," it said.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11411587/Britain-risks-turning-into-France-under-Labour-government-warns-Bank-of-America.html

Again, they just don't get it.

nicko wrote:Again,  they just don't get it.

Sadly this is the case Nicko.

Ah bless, now you're fawning over Bank of America, one of the banks that put us in the recession. Grow a pair.

Well the left really do not like the fact many economists think Labour are a disaster waiting to happen for Britain.
This is an election, and whilst most people know that Labour have always been a nightmare for the economy, we need to ensure everyone knows

Yea, that will be the economist who want to make sure the poor are kept in their place and the rich keep getting richer. You keep fawning and being 'ever so 'umble' and knowing your place.

Really is that your accusation now?
Hilarious, when the left is faced with facts, they just invent nonsense.


Yeah they are so stingy Stassi:

http://about.bankofamerica.com/en-us/global-impact/find-grants-sponsorships.html#fbid=QDeNF180R9D

Not

Lordy, lordy, I hate to see a man on his knees kissing the arse of those he thinks are his betters. The Banks stuffed us, stand up to them like a man instead of grovelling.

risingsun wrote:Lordy, lordy, I hate to see a man on his knees kissing the arse of those he thinks are his betters.  The Banks stuffed us, stand up to them like a man instead of grovelling.

Is that all you have?
Ha Ha ha Ha Ha

tTis is the view of economists, are you saying they are not qualified to give an opinion on such economic matters, all because you now make them all guilty by association off some who were criminal?
Hence your view is illogical and trying to worm out of the damage know that Labour will do

CONSIDERING that France has a bigger economy, lower unemployment, better wages and working conditions, less long-term debts, a national health service reputedly as good as Britain's, better weather, a wider range of foods, and still has it's own national car manufacturing industry...

WOULD IT BE all that bad if the UK were to end up more like France - economically speaking ???    

       

Brasidas wrote:
.........................................

This is an election, and whilst most people know that Labour have always been a nightmare for the economy, we need to ensure everyone knows

   FUNNY how you Conservative types always have to promote that same old lie...

AND THEN, your Tory-led governments always manage to leave behind record levels of unemployment, increased taxation, failed businesses, and increased national debts..
WHILE your corporate masters grow ever richer and fatter at the Publics expense.    

Brasidas wrote:
Well the left really do not like the fact many economists think Labour are a disaster waiting to happen for Britain.

...........................

A MERE HANDFUL of ultra-conservative economists doesn't equate to "many" !  
NOT by any stretch of the imagination..  

Especially when they are working for one of the INSTIGATORS of the 'Global Financial Crisis' !    

Failed businesses, record unemployment high taxation,, that's Labour you dick head!

PS and why would we want to be more like the French? You can't beat being ENGLISH.

Bank of America to pay $1.27B for ‘Hustle’ mortgages

A federal judge on Wednesday ordered Bank of America Corp. to pay a $1.27 billion penalty for fraud over shoddy mortgages sold by the former Countrywide Financial Corp.
US District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan ruled after a jury last October found the second-largest US bank liable for the sale by Countrywide of defective loans to government-controlled mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Rakoff also ordered former mid-level Countrywide executive Rebecca Mairone, who was also found liable and was the only individual charged, to pay $1 million, citing her “leading role” in the fraud and calling some of her testimony “implausible.”
While the bank’s penalty was below the $2.1 billion sought by the US Department of Justice, it marks another legal defeat for Bank of America over its disastrous July 2008 purchase of Countrywide, which has cost tens of billions of dollars in litigation, loan buybacks and writedowns.

http://nypost.com/2014/07/30/bank-of-america-to-pay-1-27b-for-hustle-mortgages/

Will The Tax Avoidance Scandal Hurt Bank Of America Corp?

In a report published by The Wall Street Journal earlier yesterday, Bank of America Corp (NYSE:BAC) was exposed on a tax avoidance strategy that it had been following since as early as 2011. Insiders leaked crucial documents revealing how Bank of America had been misusing its “government-backed” status to fund and manipulate trades, subsequently providing avenues of tax avoidance to its clients. However, Bank of America released a statement claiming that the practice had been put to a halt as of last year.
The practice essentially consisted of using accumulated funds in Bank of America’s resident unit and channeling them into the European investment unit. These transactions triggered a series of tax evasions, primarily on stock dividends. The root cause behind adopting the strategy lies in demands by senior officials in the London unit to take advantage of lower funding costs in the American unit. Senior officials began pushing for approval of the policy as early as 2011, primarily to attract an influx of hedge fund clients into the European unit. Acceptance of the policy considerably amped up the risk level, as a majority of these hedge fund clients were involved in dividend-arbitrage tax trades. In fact, internal sources revealed that Bank of America had accumulated a bulk of almost $1 billion revenue, solely from dividend-arbitrage trades.

http://www.bidnessetc.com/34841-will-the-tax-avoidance-scandal-hurt-bank-of-america-corp/



The Bank of America giving us their opinion is laughable and I wouldn’t trust these people on anything. Forget about the liars, the cheats and fraudsters and read what the National Institute of Economic and Social Research have to say about growth and which of the three Parties policies will bring higher growth. Here’s their simulation based on current policies of the three main parties. As you can see; Labour well ahead of the Tories.



Bank of America! Do me a favour

Hilarious from Irn again, so no todays economists are guilty of crimes they have not committed accept by association to people who did commit crimes for Bank of America.
You cannot make it up how stupid the left really are
They now make people innocent of crimes complicit to crimes.
So you would not trust someone Irn based on nothing more than an association to crime, as racists do to blacks then?

About sums up your mentality.

Brasidas wrote:Hilarious from Irn again, so no todays economists are guilty of crimes they have not committed accept by association to people who did commit crimes for Bank of America.
You cannot make it up how stupid the left really are
They now make people innocent of crimes complicit to crimes.
So you would not trust someone Irn based on nothing more than an association to crime, as racists do to blacks then?

About sums up your mentality.

Merrill Lynch vs National Institute of Economic and Social Research.

No contest

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/the-cost-of-putting-the-merrill-lynch-merger-behind-it/?_r=0

Bang bang

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Hilarious from Irn again, so no todays economists are guilty of crimes they have not committed accept by association to people who did commit crimes for Bank of America.
You cannot make it up how stupid the left really are
They now make people innocent of crimes complicit to crimes.
So you would not trust someone Irn based on nothing more than an association to crime, as racists do to blacks then?

About sums up your mentality.

Merrill Lynch vs National Institute of Economic and Social Research.

No contest

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/the-cost-of-putting-the-merrill-lynch-merger-behind-it/?_r=0

Bang bang

Point proven, Irn takes the same views as racists do on blacks committing criminal acts, the exact same methodology of guilt by association.
Priceless

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Hilarious from Irn again, so no todays economists are guilty of crimes they have not committed accept by association to people who did commit crimes for Bank of America.
You cannot make it up how stupid the left really are
They now make people innocent of crimes complicit to crimes.
So you would not trust someone Irn based on nothing more than an association to crime, as racists do to blacks then?

About sums up your mentality.

Merrill Lynch vs National Institute of Economic and Social Research.

No contest

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/the-cost-of-putting-the-merrill-lynch-merger-behind-it/?_r=0

Bang bang

Point proven, Irn takes the same views as racists do on blacks committing criminal acts, the exact same methodology of guilt by association.
Priceless

Of course Merrill Lynch are a s clean as a whistle - Oh dear, go and read up on it.

Meantime I've got work to be getting on with as I'm sure you must have as well but I'll look back later for another thrilling installment of 'Didge Knows Best'.

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Point proven, Irn takes the same views as racists do on blacks committing criminal acts, the exact same methodology of guilt by association.
Priceless

Of course Merrill Lynch are a s clean as a whistle - Oh dear, go and read up on it.

Meantime I've got work to be getting on with as I'm sure you must have as well but I'll look back later for another thrilling installment of 'Didge Knows Best'.

Read up about what, you are using the methodology of guilt by association.
Is the writer of this artcle guilty of any crimes?
take your time

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Point proven, Irn takes the same views as racists do on blacks committing criminal acts, the exact same methodology of guilt by association.
Priceless

Of course Merrill Lynch are a s clean as a whistle - Oh dear, go and read up on it.

Meantime I've got work to be getting on with as I'm sure you must have as well but I'll look back later for another thrilling installment of 'Didge Knows Best'.

Read up about what, you are using the methodology of guilt by association.
Is the writer of this artcle guilty of any crimes?
take your time

Read up on:

Virginia Sues 13 Banks for $1.15 Billion Alleging Fraud

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-16/virginia-sues-13-banks-for-1-15-billion-alleging-fraud

Merrill Lynch Fined $6 Million Over Short-Selling Lapses

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-10-27/merrill-lynch-fined-6-million-for-short-selling-lapses

FINRA Fines Merrill Lynch $8 Million; Over $89 Million Repaid to Retirement Accounts and Charities Overcharged for Mutual Funds

https://www.finra.org/Newsroom/NewsReleases/2014/P530005

You keep tugging that forelock and doffing that cap of yours and do their bidding for them and the likes of Bob (the Banker) Diamond and the Goodwin's of this world - it's expected of you Didge.

Again I am still waiting for you to show me what crime this person of the article has committed, not what Bank has done?
I think this is hilarious you think guilt by association makes everyone guilty.

Try again

Oh noes, could we be seeing the menace of Francification once again??!!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfQMYNwliZo

Ben_Reilly wrote:Oh noes, could we be seeing the menace of Francification once again??!!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfQMYNwliZo

Yep that is the left for you missing the point.

Anyhow back to Tiny Tim presenting the evidence against the writer of the article or is he going to use more guilt by association.




Clearly he backs the methodology that racists use against blacks on criminality.
The worst part about the wee jocks posts is he has not even countered any of the points made in the article and is using his usual trick of deflection. He thus must also believe Labour should never again be in power based on their guilt of bringing the nation not once but twice into recession due to their incompetence of running the country economically. Is that what he believes using guilt by association?



So to points for him, does he back guilt by association by using such arguments?

Is he afraid to tackle the points made in the article?

In your own time Jock

Brasidas wrote:Again I am still waiting for you to show me what crime this person of the article has committed, not what Bank has done?
I think this is hilarious you think guilt by association makes everyone guilty.

Try again

Oh dear Didge, you’re ‘Banking’ everything on convictions in a court of law and ignoring the most obvious point about why I’m saying that I wouldn’t trust these people with any advice they are dishing out about what is best for the economy of this country and I gave you several examples of why that is – downright incompetence in running their own which includes lying and cheating their clients.

You stick with them and I’ll stick with our own academic institutions who say the opposite to them and if you had any sense you would do the same.

Keep tugging – they love you



Toot toot

So again more excuses and nothing to actually counter the points.
What you think of the banks is nothing more than a deflection to taking on board what has been stated Jock. I am not concerned about whether you trust them but about whether you can counter their points. I do not trust you as far as I could throw you but I still counter your points and not use the fact you are clueless to stop me from debating you, as that would be a deflection. Hence you are trying to weasel out of this and very poorly so.

You have had 4 attempts to do so and at every turn have poorly attempted to weasel out of doing so at every turn.
One last chance

Fuck it Bras, I don't even trust these people to get France right, let alone to get the politics of economics right. People like this have lied far too much; I would prefer to ask the next French person I meet about what the country's like than to trust some corporate cheerleader.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Fuck it Bras, I don't even trust these people to get France right, let alone to get the politics of economics right. People like this have lied far too much; I would prefer to ask the next French person I meet about what the country's like than to trust some corporate cheerleader.

I am not concered who you trust as that is subjective to say the least and is not even the point of the debate. People like who? Guilt by association again, the same absurd view that racists have of trusting blacks because some blacks commit crimes? You see you use the same absurd methodology.
The thread was not who do you trust but whether a Labour Goverment would turn Britain into France in its current socialist polcies.
Seriously how many of you are goinbg to use the worst excuses for not talking about the actual topic?

Brasidas wrote:So again more excuses and nothing to actually counter the points.
What you think of the banks is nothing more than a deflection to taking on board what has been stated Jock. I am not concerned about whether you trust them but about whether you can counter their points. I do not trust you as far as I could throw you but I still counter your points and not use the fact you are clueless to stop me from debating you, as that would be a deflection. Hence you are trying to weasel out of this and very poorly so.

You have had 4 attempts to do so and at every turn have poorly attempted to weasel out of doing so at every turn.
One last chance

I gave you the National Institute of Economic and Social Research model which counters their points so would you like to counter theirs - they're an independent think tank after all.

Keep tugging to your masters in the Banking industry - the really do love you.

That Toot toot actually works and that's the second time you have come running on here when I have done it. Amazing!

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:So again more excuses and nothing to actually counter the points.
What you think of the banks is nothing more than a deflection to taking on board what has been stated Jock. I am not concerned about whether you trust them but about whether you can counter their points. I do not trust you as far as I could throw you but I still counter your points and not use the fact you are clueless to stop me from debating you, as that would be a deflection. Hence you are trying to weasel out of this and very poorly so.

You have had 4 attempts to do so and at every turn have poorly attempted to weasel out of doing so at every turn.
One last chance

I gave you the National Institute of Economic and Social Research model which counters their points so would you like to counter theirs - they're an independent think tank after all.

Keep tugging to your masters in the Banking industry - the really do love you.

That Toot toot actually works and that's the second time you have come running on here when I have done it. Amazing!

I have no masters in the bandking industry, that was hilarious and more deflection
You gave me a model, great, is that it?
If I wanted to debate their policies I would go and write to them hence why I wanted your views.
As seen you have no idea and are just going off what others think not being able to think for yourself.
Shame that as it could have been thought provoking, but as you have no idea, I will await to see if other shave any views on this.
Its time you went to school as the bell is ringing for you to get to class.

Brasidas wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Fuck it Bras, I don't even trust these people to get France right, let alone to get the politics of economics right. People like this have lied far too much; I would prefer to ask the next French person I meet about what the country's like than to trust some corporate cheerleader.

I am not concered who you trust as that is subjective to say the least and is not even the pointy of the debate. People like who? Guilt by association again, the same absurd view that racists have of trusting blacks because some blacks commit crimes? You see you use the same absurd methodology.
The thread was not who do you trust but whether a Labour Goverment would turn Britain into France in its current socialist polcies.
Seriously how many of you are goinbg to use the worst excuises for not talking about the actual topic?

That is a good point, plus one bro . I will say that in general, the people who lobby for business' interests haven't won my trust. I find that they downplay a lot of the negative aspects of capitalism. I do try to judge such things case-by-case though, and there are a lot of capitalists who have done good things.

I know a lot of people bash rideshare companies like Uber, for example. Well, I recently had to have my car repaired and used Uber to get to and from the dealership where my car was being fixed. They provided a great service for just $17 U.S., and I was very happy to be able to patronise their company.

It just seems to me that France has been treated with the same guilt-by-association that we're talking about. France's situation is more complex than a simple triumph of this-ism over that-ism. I always tell my fellow Americans that there's only so much influence any government has over its country's economic situation, and France is doing a lot of things well.

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:So again more excuses and nothing to actually counter the points.
What you think of the banks is nothing more than a deflection to taking on board what has been stated Jock. I am not concerned about whether you trust them but about whether you can counter their points. I do not trust you as far as I could throw you but I still counter your points and not use the fact you are clueless to stop me from debating you, as that would be a deflection. Hence you are trying to weasel out of this and very poorly so.

You have had 4 attempts to do so and at every turn have poorly attempted to weasel out of doing so at every turn.
One last chance

I gave you the National Institute of Economic and Social Research model which counters their points so would you like to counter theirs - they're an independent think tank after all.

Keep tugging to your masters in the Banking industry - the really do love you.

That Toot toot actually works and that's the second time you have come running on here when I have done it. Amazing!

You gave me a model, great, is that it?
If I wanted to debate their policies I would go and write to them hence why I wanted your views.
As seen you have no idea and are just going off what others think not being able to think for yourself.
Shame that as it could have been thought provoking, but as you have no idea, I will await to see if other shave any views on this.

Well all you have given me is the discredited Merrill Lynch/Bank of America the organisation you are trying to convince me is who we should listen to over and above the the National Institute of Economic and Social Research

You serious?

Keep tugging chap.

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

You gave me a model, great, is that it?
If I wanted to debate their policies I would go and write to them hence why I wanted your views.
As seen you have no idea and are just going off what others think not being able to think for yourself.
Shame that as it could have been thought provoking, but as you have no idea, I will await to see if other shave any views on this.

Well all you have given me is the discredited Merrill Lynch/Bank of America the organisation you are trying to convince me is who we should listen to over and above the the National Institute of Economic and Social Research

You serious?

Keep tugging chap.

Again deflecting with subjective views and nothing on the topic.
Seriously little boy, if you have not the knowledge here I suggest you get off to class and learn something because it is evident here all you can do is deflect from the debate.
Well you have had 6 chances and 6 tikmes the forum has seen you wimp out.
I am very happy with that

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

You gave me a model, great, is that it?
If I wanted to debate their policies I would go and write to them hence why I wanted your views.
As seen you have no idea and are just going off what others think not being able to think for yourself.
Shame that as it could have been thought provoking, but as you have no idea, I will await to see if other shave any views on this.

Well all you have given me is the discredited Merrill Lynch/Bank of America the organisation you are trying to convince me is who we should listen to over and above the the National Institute of Economic and Social Research

You serious?

Keep tugging chap.

Again deflecting with subjective views and nothing on the topic.
Seriously little boy, if you have not the knowledge here I suggest you get off to class and learn something because it is evident here all you can do is deflect from the debate.
Well you have had 6 chances and 6 tikmes the forum has seen you wimp out.
I am very happy with that

I'm right on the topic and I've given you the model of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research to ponder over - an independent think tank.

What you got? - The Bankers, who next thing you will be telling me is that the Bank of America have been stitched up and they aren't guilty of anything.

Honestly Didge, you're no real but keep tugging away there

So that is 7 times now avoiding talking about the points in the article ha ha ha ha.
This is getting better by the minute.
Anyone want to place bets on how many posts it will take?

Brasidas wrote:So that is 7 times now avoiding talking about the points in the article ha ha ha ha.
This is getting better by the minute.
Anyone want to place bets on how many posts it will take?

Sorry dude, but if you're on BOA's side you have to back yourself up more than usual ... just sayin'

http://youwannaknowwhatsbullshit.blogspot.com/2011/04/my-bank.html

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Brasidas wrote:So that is 7 times now avoiding talking about the points in the article ha ha ha ha.
This is getting better by the minute.
Anyone want to place bets on how many posts it will take?

Sorry dude, but if you're on BOA's side you have to back yourself up more than usual ... just sayin'

http://youwannaknowwhatsbullshit.blogspot.com/2011/04/my-bank.html

I do not have to do anything Ben until people actually adress the topics of the article even if you poortly attempt to defend a woeful lefty.
The article was posted with valid points and all Irn has done and even worse you fall victim the same is attack not the article but the source of the article.
So you believe the best way to counter something is to attack its source?
Please explain that to me?
Seriously I have two puppets in my hands now.

Brasidas wrote:So that is 7 times now avoiding talking about the points in the article ha ha ha ha.
This is getting better by the minute.
Anyone want to place bets on how many posts it will take?

The point is that you are putting up the Bank of America as the people we should listen to in who would be better in running our economy. I'm disputing that and giving you the views of a highly respected independent think tank in this country.

That's the point Didge. But you stick with the discredit Bank of America who have swindled their clients, been fined millions and been ordered to pay back millions to their clients and I'll stick with the National Institute of Economic and Social Research who have presented their figures in respect of growth for the UK. What figures have you got from the Bank of America in relation to growth?

Keep tugging though - they love you

Number 8 deflection.
Again if all you can do Irn is attack the source then you do as usual as some lefties do and not counter the points made but the source.
If that is the case we can dismiss any news article as being worthless because news media articles many times spread miss driection and are thus not honest. Thus the bases for your argument would render any article redundent before we ever discussed them because of you attacking the source.

That is why you and Ben are flapping like fish out of the water.
I am well aware of both your views on the bank, that is plainbly clear but has no relevance to the points raised in the article.

8 times now my little puppet ha ha

Brasidas wrote:Number 8 deflection.
Again if all you can do Irn is attack the source then you do as usual as some lefties do and not counter the points made but the source.
If that is the case we can dismiss any news article as being worthless because news media articles many times spread miss driection and are thus not honest. Thus the bases for your argument would render any article redundent before we ever discussed them because of you attacking the source.

That is why you and Ben are flapping like fish out of the water.
I am well aware of both your views on the bank, that is plainbly clear but has no relevance to the points raised in the article.

8 times now my little puppet ha ha

Got the Bank of America simulation model to hand with their detailed figures have you, or are you just taking what they say at face value? You are taking at face value aren't you?

Now look at the alternative presented by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research and tell me where they are wrong and the Bank of America is right.

These are the choices before you.

Keep tugging and here's something for you to clutch

So that is 9 times now this is brilliant.

I ask you for the Bank of America simulation model and their detailed figures and present them and also for you to look at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research data and tell me where they are wrong and the Bank of America is right.

And you come back with a Sandie Shaw video. Get a grip FGS

Do you want another go?

Toot toot

Irn Bru wrote:I ask you for the Bank of America simulation model and their detailed figures and present them and also for you to look at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research data and tell me where they are wrong and the Bank of America is right.

And you come back with a Sandie Shaw video. Get a grip FGS

Do you want another go?

Toot toot

So that is now ten times nothing has been debated about what is presented in the article.
I wonder how many posts this can go on for before he stops being a weasel ha ha