Cheers for that.





You may wish to consider moving your money into an ISA that pays more interest. [url=http://www.moneysupermarket.com/savings/cash-isas/Here are some options[/url. I assume your investment ISA was an index tracker and the value of your investment has moved in line with the movement of the tracked index? However I don't see how your poor money management is relevant.

There is no gambling here. You deposited your money in one account and received the interest that account pays. You invested some money in another account and the value of that investment changed in line with the performance of the underlying investment.



I've never said anything about the widening income gap. What I don't accept is that everyone apart from the top few are worse off now than thirty years ago. That specific claim. I got bored of you trying to evade addressing that claim, going off on tangents and making spurious claims. Like the one above.

"When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done”.

John Maynard Keynes

Ah yes; of course. It's the fault of myself – and the likes of McLaren – for not being financial whizz kids; for not having particular skills to know when we're being conned or offered a good deal by people are are actually professionals in the field.

For not being able to spend hours and hours trawling through savings policies to find the best ones – just as we now need to spend hours trawling through every utility company to find the 'best deal' and so on and so forth.



It is supposed to be savings. The clue is in the word.

In the olden days, you would put your money into a savings account and you would know that they would be safe and would grow gently but continually.

You weren't expected to be an expert – that's why you went to banks and other trusted institutions where you would be given trustworthy advice. You'd get a service – an ethos that has been sadly lost in the last 30 years, as has been commented on , on these forums, by more than just me.

You, however, appear to think it's a dirty ethos: that ordinary people should not be able to trust, say, banks, but should themselves take responsibility for knowing more than the professionals giving them the advice and selling them the products.

There's something profoundly wrong with that and, if you can't see that, then that's rather sad.



That specific "claim", which I then posted masses of links and stuff on – and you then disappeared from the discussion? That one? The one where I found loads of data on housing costs and other living costs, and wage levels and heaven alone knows what else? You mean those?

And there are plenty of actual economists who use the phrase 'casino economy'. I have posted one such comment here. You better tell them you know better than they do.

As I asked before, are you Bob Diamond or his bag carrier?

When I was sold my ISA's the "advisor" (who I now know was no better than a sales rep), couldn't over-emphasise the fact that if I had "invested" my ten grand with them five years previously then it would have increased in value THREE times, in other words I'd be getting thirty grand back in my hand, tax free.

Of course, I know now that he was merely a sales rep for himself and his manager, but at the time he was my "Personal Advisor" and had been for several years, remember at this time that I had a business, did all of my personal and business banking with NatWest and every year they would send my "Personal Advisor" around to discuss our requirements, so yeas, of course I trusted his "advice".

Again, this was in '99, there was a huge change in the way that banks approached customers in the 90s, our bank manager of 20 years was pensioned off early and we got a succession of automatons who pushed products harder and harder - but stupidly I still trusted them at this point.

You'll understand why, by 2000 or so, I had realised that they were all no better than spivs.

And like you, I don't really understand this attitude that I should be the one who follows the stock markets every morning, not when I'm paying handsomely for self-proclaimed experts at a national institution to do so - thats a bit like paying a roofer to replace some rooftiles and then climbing up his ladder to hold his toolbag for him.

:2s9r8jje

You sought professional advice and they recommended a cash ISA that pays around 0.2% interest? I'd say there is something wrong with that. Did you take this any further?

by massive over-spending on public services and the gold-plated pensions of public sector workers".

I know these claims are nice sound bites but without any substance they really are worthless.

Well that's the problem, isn't it? According to SBR (and others), it's our fault.

All this lovely choice that we've been given by successive governments via deregulation and privatisation has absolutely nothing to do with making it easier to screw the likes of you and me (pensions mis-selling was just an accidental blip) and it is entirely up to us to take the time to learn more about the subject than those whose job it is to do the selling.

Why in the name of goodness anyone still believes – let alone pedals – this claptrap is beyond me. Quite apart from anything else, it's the most ridiculous blurring of the lines between amateur and professional ever.

One wonders why any such salesperson is paid a wage to do their job, since you and I should know at least as much as them, if not more. Presumably, they will not have had any training that we will not have had in doing this. They won't have any support in knowing and understanding their product and how to sell it. They will have no resources that are not available to us too to enable them to sell it.

It's not dissimilar to the 'argument' that, for instance, there is no un-level playing field when advertising (and media that relies on advertising) set out to damage self image in order to boost sales.

See McLaren's post.

I don't recall what the interest rate was quoted as being. I very much doubt it was that. But that's my fault. Obviously. I shouldn't trust a professional to give me trustworthy advice, but should work on the basis that everyone is out to screw me and, therefore, know more about it than the person flogging me something – sorry, providing me with a service.

I vaguely remember the second ISA – the one with a slight risk built in – well, that was how it was described to me by the salesperson. Sorry, financial services professional. Obviously, I should have realised better and not trusted them.

Basic savings accounts were unavailable for years – and have only become available again since 2008. That may tell you something.



I showed exactly that. I also showed that incomes had not kept pace with the rising cost of living.

I provided a stack of data, from a variety of sources.

I don't know why you choose to pretend it isn't the case. I can only assume that you still think 'greed is good' and are, at present, doing okay on that basis. As I asked: are you Bob Diamond or his bag carrier?



Okay. You didn't. You just denied that most people, except those at the very top end of the incomes scale, have seen a real-term drop in the values of their earnings over the last 30 years.



I didn't make the latter up. It was made up by people who didn't want to blame finance and the banks. It was something that started to be pedalled through the media in the late summer of 2008.

BTW – you know better than Keynes, yes?

The problem is that the financial services industry is based on seeing into the future, which under current technological conditions cannot be done. So, invetiably there is great uncertainty with the majority of "financial products". For many years now "products" have had disclaimers attached and so there's little excuse for people to say they did not know...

It's called guessing.

How on earth did anyone manage in the olden days when that was not the case?

Same as they can / do now.

Since 2008, that may be the case, as proper deposit accounts have been reintroduced in the wake of the financial crisis.

Before then, that was not the case for something like three decades. As I have explained. And, indeed, as McLaren has also explained.

A situation existed where the ordinary saver was at the mercy of the salesperson, rather than someone in an organisation with an ethos of service behind them.

For SBR (and others), we were to blame, since we should have taken the time to learn more about the products available than the person selling them for a living.

Similarly, we should know more about TV technology than a salesperson when buying a new TV; we should learn more about power tools when buying one; more about cars than anyone selling us one – and so on and so forth.

We must become more expert than the experts – and how dare we imagine that an ethos of good service was ever a good thing and something that should be created again (if possible).

Have you ever tried asking for advice on a TV, etc in a chain shop these days? They staff know nothing. So, I would always buy a magazine, speak to people and research on the internet before committing. Likewise, you are able to do the same when "being sold" financial dross. Indeed, the key question to is usually what the inherent costs are - as these are the biggest drag on investment performance when it comes to ISAs, pension, etc. Most 'growth' in these products over time is illusory when you discount for inflation and the fact that income is usually reinvested along the way. These factors help hide the drag of costs on good times. In a poor investment environment, like we've had for quite some time now there's no hiding them.

Personally, I try to go to shops where I do know that the staff will have an ethos of service, and will have some actual knowledge. That usually means that these are places where staff are not treated dismally and paid abysmally.

John Lewis is a perfect illustration of this.

I do not have the time and expertise to research and become expert in every damned product or service that I wish to buy. I usually do do some research, but not to the level where I know more than people who are paid to be able to advise me and supply a service. And I should not have to expect to.

The main difference being that Comet don't stand a sales assistant in front of you and tell you that they are an expert in the subject, have achieved rigorous examination results, and undergo stringent regulation under a body set up to regulate their industry.

Banks and independant financial advisors do

They promote themselves as the complete and absolute arbitors and advisors of your financial affairs and go to great lengths during conversations to remind you how carefully they are controlled and regulated and to show you their qualifications, indeed none of them will commence a discussion with you until they have been through the whole FSA routine of explaingin just how important they are.

And then they take a guess.

And when they've taken a guess they go to great lengths to assure you that its ok and not a problem but that their advice can result in you losing money, just when you thought they were there to make you money they go and spoil it all.


My money is under the bed now, and I'm making more of it than any "financial advisor" ever did.

My goodness. It's epidemic! Some else needs SBR to explain that there is no such thing as [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9386456/Ed-Miliband-urges-a-return-to-stewardship-banking.html"casino banking"[/url.

My view is: NEVER EVER buy anything from a bank and NEVER EVER leave it to them to deal with you Will. I can't believe anyone would buy a "product" from a high street bank.

As to IFA's - if you are not paying them a fee, they are dependent on commission so will often have to advise you of something that gives them an income. On insurance-based products they tend to get an amount equivalent the first few years premiums as their introducers fee plus a smal "tail" over the life of the product. I think the industry is moving away from, commission income from January isn't it? Which will mean that access to advice will be limited to those willing to pay a couple of hundred quid an hour.

Utter rubbish. As usual. This didn't used to be the case. The banks used to provide A SERVICE.

Unfortunately, people like you repeatedly voted for parties that believed that 'greed is good' and people as a whole should be shafted to make mega profits for the few.

So what exactly is their purpose then ?

The next time you want to squirrel away some money for a rainy day then first of all you'll need to enrol at an institute of higher education, [url=http://oyc.yale.edu/economics/econ-252-08like this one for instance[/url and then, after you graduate, only then will you be able to make your own decisions on where to place your money and which financial products to invest in, mind, those course notes could be rather amusing, given that they were written in 2008.

To deposit money with and / or borrow from.

Which parties do you think I have voted for?

So you buy into their services then ?

Once again we've disappeared off on a tangent. I do apologise for getting dragged in on this particular one. How is any of this relevant to a 'casino' economy or banking? You put money into an account with a stated rate of interest and received that interest. Not really a gamble, is it?

By the way I genuinely did laugh out loud when I saw you'd linked to an article about Ed Miliband using the term 'casino banking' as if that added some weight to the term. Hilarious.



Wow. In response me pointing out you've claimed I said something I never said you've done it again.



Who are these people? Surely you have at least one quote to back up this?
This is the at least the fourth time of asking this relatively simple question. The lack of answers is why I get bored of asking the questions. It becomes clear you've simply made things up (as you've proven you're quite willing to do).

Do try to keep up.

Banks – 'casino banking' – removing the option for straightforward, safe savings accounts, but selling you 'products' that are based on a bet: ie something that could go up as well as down.

Oh, hang on: I forgot that I'm supposed to be the expert in absolutely everything I buy – more expert, indeed, than those trained in the selling of such products (and see McLaren's posts too on this).

Do you actually think such things through? Why do you think that service is not a laudable idea and institutions such as banks have no responsibility to be trustworthy and provide a genuine service? Because if you're lumping the responsibility for being more expert than the supposed experts on to the customers, then you have ditched any such ideas of service or trustworthiness, sunshine, and it would be good to see you come out and specifically acknowledge that.

As only a very slight aside, Jon Snow is working on a report of how Barclay's mis-selling has affected individuals and small businesses. Why don't you give him a call and tell him that it was their responsibility to make sure they knew more about the products being flogged than the salesperson – sorry, banker?

In terms of the economy? Are you struggling to maintain this pretence that you don't know what is meant by such a phrase? I do hope you're paid well for being such self-demeaning apologist.

Vast amounts of what has happened, which has caused the financial crisis, have been based on – let's put it politely – speculation. To speculate – that's to guess at the outcome of something. Which is what a bet is; a gamble.

What do you do in a casino? You take money and you use it to speculate, to bet, to gamble, in the hope that you'll make more money. The odds in any bet may vary. The odds may, indeed, even be something like 90% in favour of your preferred outcome, but it is still a bet; still a gamble.

We have banks and finance betting huge sums of money – people's pensions (their lives, in other words), their savings etc – by buying really sound things like, err, debts. They do so in the hope that they'll be able to make even more money.

There has been speculation in the finance sector all over the place. Finance is a major part of the economy. Such speculation – such gambling – has been the prime cause of the crisis., because it was the reason the banks had to be rescued. Thus we see the results of a casino economy.



And what about Keynes? Did you laugh then too – or have you conveniently 'forgotten' that one?