Let them be Furious

I have just read this in today's Financial Times:

Bankers on Wall Street and in Europe have struck back against moves by US law makers to slap punitive taxes on bonuses paid to high earners at bailed out institutions.

Senior executives on both sides of the Atlantic on Friday warned of an exodus of talent from some of the biggest names in US finance, saying the “anti American” measures smacked of “a McCarthy witch hunt” that would send the country “back to the stone age”.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4ff2f77e-1584-11de-b9a9-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

My responses are as follows:

• the banking industry has demonstrated a dearth of talent over the last five years
• where are these bankers thinking of going
• who would want them to do what they do so badly
• what makes them persist in the notion that they are any good

To paraphrase WS Gilbert

As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,

I've got a little list, I've got a little list

Of society offenders who might well be underground,

And who never would be missed, who never would be missed!

There's the pestilential bankers who contract for bonuses

All financiers who have grubby hands and act like callouses

...

The operative part of that quip from The Mikado is that these bankers "never would be missed".

I would like a few bankers to write here and explain why they feel they deserve their massive salaries and bonuses ON THE BASIS OF THEIR PERFORMANCE. I also want them to exclude any reference to contractual obligations. After all, I am sure I am right in saying that no contract exists which includes the phrase, in the event of the collapse of the bank, no bonus is due or even, in the event of a forced Government bail out of the bank, no bonus is due.

Plonkers they are!

DW

Air Ambulance or not?

What I am about to say is controversial on the one hand and simple and straightforward on the other.

There has just been an article on the radio that came from mid Wales: on the unofficial border between North and South Wales, they said. Sorry but because of my unfamiliarity with the Principality and the accent, I didn't catch the name of the place.

Anyway, the point of this post is that they discussed the air ambulance service. This community is remote and they said that even by the fastest possible car, it would take an hour to get from the town/village to the nearest Accident and Emergency (A&E) Hospital.

I think this is something that now needs to be asked: merely because an air ambulance can be provided, should it be? By the same token, merely because very complicated microsurgery and its attendant after care can be provided, should it be?

Some of the arguments, rehearsed in the radio programme, include that without the air ambulance service, someone, say, suffering a stroke or heart attack would miss the golden hour opportunity. Therefore, if a victim of a stroke takes more than an hour to get to A&E, their chances of survival are significantly reduced. Alternatively, if they survive the golden hour they might have a poorer quality of life than otherwise.

The lady in the radio article argued as if there is a right to the air ambulance service. I don't agree: I don't agree that the air ambulance can be provided just because it can be. Why do I say this? I say it because of the opportunity costs: that is, if we provide an air ambulance service then, in the context of finite and limited budgets, something else is either not provided or is provided to a lesser extent than otherwise.

The extreme situation here is that I firmly believe that the National Health Service (NHS) should provide a preventive and primary care service first and foremost. The expensive additional services such as an air ambulance and microsurgery can appear fantastic and can save lives and limbs. However, without a major rationalisation of the budgeting system, the basic services that I have always expected to be provided may no longer be available to me.

I grew up with a General Practitioner service in which my parents could call the GP at any time of the day or night and that GP would attend us at home if necessary or would guarantee an appointment at his surgery. This type and level of service is no longer available.

I have had a limited number of conversations with a GP who defends his resistance to carrying out calls to patients' homes because some patients are perfectly ambulant and should make the effort to get to the surgery. To what extent is the GP here justified in his approach that it should be the GP who makes the assessment of whether to attend a patient on the basis that they can afford the time and effort to get to the surgery? One of the GP's arguments is based on the opportunity cost concept: that he could visit old and infirm people at their homes rather than "wasting his time" attending someone who could get to the surgery under his own steam.

Well, there you are: some of the arguments that came to me as I was listening to that radio programme.

DW

Wacky Phone Names

In an idle moment at Riyadh airport last night I asked my phone to see who it could find via Bluetooth. Just find, not to hack and not to pester.

I found 15 other phones. Most phones were called Phone! One phone had an alphanumeric name and a couple had very ordinary names, like Rebecca.

Three names stood out:

Cinderella
Black Dragon
Old fart! (The ! Was part of the name)

Hey ho!

DW

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Face the Jib

Not to like the cut of someone's jib is to take a dislike to them or not to trust them. It's official: you can tell a lot about someone by the cut of their jib.

An experiment with a very large sample has shown that your creditworthiness is found in your face.

Bankers etc will either not lend to you or they will charge you an average of an extra 1.82% interest on a loan if your face doesn't fit.

There you are.

DW
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

miB (anag)

I am about to fly with my least favourite airline. Splew tri raza. At check in I presented my frequent flyer card (I am at level two with this lot) thinking it would count for something.

As is my wont, I asked for maximum leg room (remember, I am 1.91 m tall) and at least an aisle seat. As he turned his back on me to attend to something else, cleary more important than me, he retorted with a muttered, I can't promise maximum leg room.

He tapped away at his keyboard and then handed me my boarding card.

Being the old cove that I am I said with a lilt, is that a good seat? With sneer he replied, it's an aisle.

I waited for the boarding pass for the second leg of my journey home. Nothing. Not even, have a nice flight as he parried my request for that pass with, you'll get that in London.

Thank you. Goodbye. I said.

I will be interested to see who got the extra legroom seats as I was only about the tenth passenger to check in.

I thought frequent flyer schemes were two way affairs:

Someone flies frequently, in a loyal way, with an airline
The airline is grateful

Apparently not. This sort of treatment rankles.

DW

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device