Jump to content

Recommended Posts

We have any opporutnity to reengineer / refine the way that capitalism is currently structured for the better


What is this opportunity of which you speak? What re-engineering are you proposing? What refinements would work?


Sitting in a tent near St Pauls doesn't seem to have achieved very much - except to undermine the quality of life of Londoners working and travelling in the area - and sending out the wrong message to potential tourists.


If people wish to engage in political dialogue - fine, make a speech, set up a political party, write an article. Squatting isn't dialogue - as Ian Hislop has pointed out all the St Pauls camp has actually achieved is the departure / dismissal of two or three rather woolly minded clerics.

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Unregulated capitalism has seriously undermined global well being and democracy. The 'Occupy'

> movement is attempting to encourage a debate on how we organise our society and economy in light

> of the global economic crisis. This thread would suggest that they are going someway to achieving

> this aim. It is hardly fair to criticise them for not providing easy answers.


The Occupy protests remind me a little of the standard Hollywood prostitute scene:


Man: What's your name?

Woman: What do you want it to be?


The people taking part in the Occupy protests has wildly varying reasons for being there, and it seems all of the supporters are happy to read that their particular bugbear is the one that is at the heart of the protest. If I was being kind, I'd say it was a dazzling case of brilliant marketing.


For those of us a little more questioning, it still comes down to 'What do they want?' and that, it seems, is the number one question they don't seem to have an answer for. Whatever, the answer sure as hell does not seem to be 'a debate'.

> What is this opportunity of which you speak? What

> re-engineering are you proposing? What refinements

> would work?


There is a general feeling that the deregulation of the financial industry has seriously backfired. A consensus that the system needs to change and this could act as a catalyst for change. To suggest regulation of the financial markets has been politically difficult, but the crisis has presented an opportunity.


In terms of re-engineering the system, clearly this needs to be looked at very carefully and needs to follow a full, public debate. But, basically, it needs to ensure that markets are more balanced, that they deliver outcomes that are for the benefit of more than a small minority and that they incentivise efficient and value adding activities.


> Sitting in a tent near St Pauls doesn't seem to

> have achieved very much - except to undermine the

> quality of life of Londoners working and

> travelling in the area - and sending out the wrong

> message to potential tourists.


It's created a debate and it's kept some of the issues surrounding the financial crash at the top of the news agenda. It is important that the rightous indignation that followed in the immediate aftermath of the crisis doesn't fade and allow us to return to business as usual IMO.


> If people wish to engage in political dialogue -

> fine, make a speech, set up a political party,

> write an article. Squatting isn't dialogue - as

> Ian Hislop has pointed out all the St Pauls camp

> has actually achieved is the departure / dismissal

> of two or three rather woolly minded clerics.


For better or worse, the actions of the camp have actually done more to raise their profile and propogate their grievances than an letter to their MP would ever have done.

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Unregulated capitalism? What, as in... no

> regulation?

>

> Surely we do have plenty of regulation. The

> discussion we need is about what additional regs

> we need to protect our society. Not a load of

> cliched vagaries.


OK, so you could say inadequately regulated capitalism, it amounts to the same point. Primarilly though the issue is about financial markets which have very little regulation indeed.

"In terms of re-engineering the system, clearly this needs to be looked at very carefully and needs to follow a full, public debate. But, basically, it needs to ensure that markets are more balanced, that they deliver outcomes that are for the benefit of more than a small minority...."


Fine words, but what does this actually mean? What does a balanced market look like, and how do you regulate to achieve it? Delivering outcomes are what (in modern speak) organisations do, but markets are not single entities - they are messy bunches of transactions involving lots of different individuals and organisations.


I looked at the Occupied Times, and it's a none too impressive. I'm trying not to be too harsh but touchy-feely pseudo New Age bullshit will not take anybody any closer to understanding, let alone dealing with the genuinely complicated issues that the current economic situation has thrown up.

There are a number of very dubious practices which need regulating. Closing down so called vulture funds for example. restricting short selling for another. I posted this on another thread, but Professor Robert Frank recently presented a really good lecturer to an audience at the LSE which also outlined some interesting ideas on how one can reduce wasteful activities based on positional competition.

The current crisis has exposed some serious faults in the current system. It's not good enough to say it's too difficult a subject to think about so lets carry on as before.

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I looked at the Occupied Times, and it's a none

> too impressive. I'm trying not to be too harsh but

> touchy-feely pseudo New Age bullshit will not take

> anybody any closer to understanding, let alone

> dealing with the genuinely complicated issues that

> the current economic situation has thrown up.


There is no doubt that the Occupy movement is a fairly disparate group. It's a bit incoherent, but for better or worse, it takes something controvercial and inconvenient like the camp to keep the issue live. Prior to their appearance, we were in very real danger of the debate fading from public attention.

What has actually changed as a result of the financial crisis in terms of how we regulate markets. Very little indeed. There is nothing to stop the same thing happening again? In fact I see only yesterday that the government are encouraging 95% mortgages again.

Totally agree that the solution to this mess lies in effective regulation, but to say that financial markets have very little regulation is completely untrue. As for short-selling... it's an essential tool of risk management, and I'm not convinced there's an effective way to ban "naked" shorting.

"The current crisis has exposed some serious faults in the current system. It's not good enough to say it's too difficult a subject to think about so lets carry on as before."



That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is these are not camping-protest type issues. This not Greenham Common - say no to nukes! This is "how do you incentivise institutional investors to be more interventionist in the companies that they own to improve corporate governance and long-term planning?" "How do you regulate OTC derivatives trading to achieve robust risk pricing without stifling genuine creativity in capital markets?" Call me a cynic but I doubt I am going to get interesting answers to those questions from a moonlighting social worker in Peruvian knitwear.

http://www.economicvoice.com/occupy-london-makes-ubs-building-into-bank-of-ideas/50025817#axzz1eSz77Zrv


Occupy Londons website

"The centre was opened on Saturday morning as the ?Bank of Ideas?, with activists promising to make space available for those that have lost their nurseries, community centres and youth clubs to Government spending cuts."


Why not use a building thats standing empty, pity the goverment couldn't come up with ideas like this.

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We do. People from all over the world can read

> this forum.


Was thinking the same Brendan.


Jeremy This is not a new concept, theres loads of squats, social centres been offering there spaces to be used.

If parents want to take up this offer, and create something different, obviously there are some who would find the idea

absurd, regardless of this building lying empty over two years. What would you like to see happen with this space or would you rather it lay empty.

I suppose such action (self help. Urseries, schools etc) could be considered as an example of the "Big Society" and people doing things for themselves, rather than expecting a paternalistic government to provide for every want using money it doesn't have.

Doesn't a nursery need staff (who have had the appropriate training and safety checks)? Does the building have heating, electricity and plumbing? Is it a clean, safe environment for young children? Get real!!


I don't mind them squatting an unused building (I believe it's earmarked for demolition, along with much of the Broadgate estate). But to pretend it's for the good of the greater community is plainly ridiculous.

Everyone should feel safe and welcome in the Bank. Our Safer Spaces Policy asks people to be mindful and respectful of how their ideas or actions might effect others, and there is a No Drugs and Alcohol Policy. As this is a public space any damage or disrespect to the property would be an act of disrespect and violence towards your own community, a community trying to come together to find positive solutions to our current crises. We ask all people who come into the space to come in with respect.


Above of there website here http://www.bankofideas.org.uk/


This may be hard for you to understand Jeremy, but not all parents are happy with education, many home educating.

Nor does everyone feel there children are safe in school.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...