Sunday, Oct 19, 2008
I Think We Need A New Risk Register
Cabinet Office: National Risk Register
You’d have thought that collapse of the housing market and failure of a large UK bank would be included as risks, wouldn’t you? Especially as our economy relied so heavily on them.
See also:
http://www.financialsectorcontinuity.gov.uk/
And
http://www.ukresilience.gov.uk/
And
http://interactive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/documents/security/national_security_strategy.pdf
Posted by renting2 @ 09:55 AM (363 views) Add Comment
12 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. charlie brooker said...
Is this to be a list of individuals and groups that pose risks to the economy, a bit like the Sex Offenders Register?
2. matt_the_hat said...
Risk #1 should now be - people wake the fu6k up and stop working for 0.0001% of the population to get rich
3. Eternal Sceptic said...
The control freaks strike again. Probably will need to be chipped to access your own money within 3 years, If there is anything left by then.
4. planning4acrash said...
No, we need a free market, where risk is properly priced in. We will see layer upon layer of centrally planned alternatives for healthy functioning free markets. None will work, greater tyranny laid upon each other. It has to stop, because the logical end product is an Orwellian nightmare where everybody is spied upon. The free market aggregates the actions of free individuals and is the greatest form of democracy ever created. Oligarch's hate it, because they are not in control of the free market and actually have to assess reality and respond to it. They hate that and don't make so much money.
5. planning4acrash said...
Of course, it also creates a market in bribes to get off the list and put others on. I doubt Goldman Sach stooges will hit the radar. Total recipe for nepotism and innefficient socialist/fascist business models that create excesses of the wrong products, why? Because the business model doesn't respond to supply and demand cues from the free market. So, once again, here i another problem that further layers of socialist bureaucracy will be enlisted to deal with. Like, by allowing fraudulent derivatives, there was always going to be an excess, so, in allowing them and being complicit, the government had already, right from beginning, in stating its interest in sustaining the business model, had already agreed to buy excess derivatives once they had been proven to be bad investments.
So, businesses supported by nepotism in a government list of risk will need corporate welfare when they finally fail, and they will, because they are responding to favour, not the supply and demand price signals of the free market. They will produce excess products that the state must purchase, bad debt that the government must underwrite. The socialist model is a contract between state and corporations for nepotism and corporate welfare. The sooner we all understand that, the soon we can start demanding smaller government and refuse to support the system.
Freedom, is the freedom to have businesses that support our needs, and freedom to, by our refusal to purchase dud products, to have inneficient businesses fail, at the full risk of the investors and entrepreneurs who failed. Failure of inneficiency is a key part of freedom, and we need to understand this, or we will never be free. Because many here and beyond are still slightly sucked in by a tiny level of sentimentaility for the failed bankers being bailed out and the mortgagee's who borrowed too much money. Just enough to keep silent.
6. planning4acrash said...
Key here, is, a the moment, that the borrowers, i.e. the entrepreneurs, take the full rap, the investors usually having the opportunity to foreclose the business/house and strip its assets. Well, in a true system, the investor takes as much risk as the entrepreneur. In reality, the entrepreneur, having put in the most work, should have a preference on asset stripping, or, it should be split depending on the amount of money put in. But, that would be the Muslim non-usery system, where financiers can buy shares in a business that can be bought back, but cannot lend on interest. This is the best model, in business and homebuying.
Imagine it. The bank, offering a 95% mortgage, would charge you 95% of the market rental, possibly with rent protection. You then pay that rent, and slowly buy out the bank. They benefit from rent collection, and, when bought off, have capital to buy other houses.
With business, the system is yet more powerful. The bank is shareholder, so takes risk and profit, so must put considerable effort into vetting businesses it invests in. Liquidity would dry up but be focused and banks and businesses responding to the free market would grow and do well. Also, when the bank invests poorly, they loose share value, so, poor investment institutions don't do well. That is freedom.
7. planning4acrash said...
Banks that do badly, in the present system, are those that do best, peversely, those who invest in a poor business model get the assets when the business fails, and corporate welfare when they fail, so, the system, by allowing usery, encourages lending to poor business models. Why would a bank lend to a AAA rated professional or man of industry who will pay off the mortgage early, when they can lend to a shark in a run down part of town, and claim the entire property when the sucker inevitably defaults? So, its the system, not the players that are at fault, but, no doubt players will be held up to the public, put in the stocks to be abused, whilst the system goes on, unscathed.
8. planning4acrash said...
One more point, before I head off to the farmers market, usery is the charging of interest on lending money created from thin air, fiat money. So, with our fraudulent system, banks are encouraged to run down their reserve rations (Not attract deposits) because they don't need them, except to maintain fractional reserve requirements. Go back to sound money, and, the banks that attract the most savings, i.e. the banks that invest best and provide the best dividends, would be the most successful. This is why, in a free market, savings are key to business finance, a key part of the price signals of supply and demand.
9. renting2 said...
Hmmm - the link actually takes you to the current risk register as itn stands. I was pointing out that it should have included financial risks as well. The other links take you to what contingency plans are in place and for what.
10. shipbuilder said...
p4ac - can you explain how the formation/rise of a large corporation such as Tesco (and the subsequent advantages/exploitation of its market position) would be prevented or balanced in a free market system?
11. planning4acrash said...
Without fiat money, capital would be better balanced amongst investors, much of the problem is hedge funds ploughing money into business models they can understand. A more free market would not allow monopolies. Monopolies are generally the result of state intervention.
12. shipbuilder said...
p4ac, how would a free market not allow monopolies? Is Tesco's success investment driven? Many free-marketeers (and I have had this discussion with a few) believe Tesco is a shining success story.
Some people in favour of free markets at least admit that they lead to inequality and that the inequality is just tough - the spoils in society go to the smartest/hardest working/most aggressive etc, as they have done.
My problem with your approach is that you are trying to make out that free markets are the cure for all ills and will create some perfect utopia, with all the benefits of capitalism and socialism combined.
If this isn't even a view shared by your fellow free-marketeers, why would I be convinced?