UK Uncut

Thanks to Old Holborns post earlier today I felt the urge to read a little more into UK Uncut and their "Bail In" strategy, which today sees activists sitting in branches of Barclays Banks across the country.

Even though UK Uncut correctly acknowledge that Barclays "did not take any direct state help during the financial crisis" they feel, somewhat bewilderingly, aggrieved that Barclays are posting profits and paying out bonuses.  This is exactly what successful businesses should do.

This is where I fail to see the logical steps in their argument, they know that Barclays did not need or take any public money, they also correctly identify that it was the government's quantitative easing strategy and loan guarantees that created a "stronger" and more profitable banking sector after the collapse, which Barclays are now profiting from.  So why is the finger pointed squarely at Barclays instead of where it actually belongs, in the face of the state?

UK Uncut seem to argue that because Barclays are benefiting from the strategies implemented to help the other banks that suddenly they own Barclays success too, bullshit.  Barclays success was a very predictable side effect from the governments strategy, if you offer a successful bank guarantees on loans it will obviously take advantage of the offer, just as paying people to stay at home sees higher levels of unemployment.

Reading the full article reveals to me that this is a completely warped jealous socialist agenda which has nothing to do with any economic facts or immoral actions conducted by Barclays.  They are being critical of Barclays simply because it is a profitable business, thus a thorn in socialisms heel.  UK Uncut criticises them for buying "up assets from the US arm of investment bank Lehman Brothers at bargain rates" and making a profit form it, which certainly isn’t a crime, its called a good investment.  They go on to criticise the wages of the CEO, claiming that the "sum is 1000 times what the average Barclays cashier earns and would pay for the salaries of 542 nurses or 380,000 Education Maintenance Allowances".  Whilst I don't agree with his huge salary the same could be said for footballers, musicians or OK Magazine celebrities who are all, in my opinion, grossly overvalued.  But if people are prepared to pay that price for their labour then that is what they are worth, this is the quintessential observation of wealth.

But there you have it, this is just more of the same old tired socialist nonsense; why is it right that someone can make more money than someone else?  Why should some people profit whilst other don't?  The answer, because they are the ones producing and providing the goods and services which you want!

As far as my stance on the banks; they should never have been bailed out in the first place.  It's pretty obvious, at least to me, who is to blame for the crisis and the resulting squabble over the banking sector and they certainly don't work at Barclays.