Tuesday, Sep 01, 2009
The painful Truth
Timesonline: Worst of slump yet to come, says economist
To quote a comment -
Miles Stapleton wrote:
"She is baffled that the Government has used billions of pounds of public money to rescue the banks without insisting on any change in behaviour."
Aren't we all !
...Why is no-one asking this question where it matters, in parliament????
Posted by bystander @ 03:31 PM (3064 views) Add Comment
23 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. alan said...
Brown & Darling are fixated on polls, the party conference and the next election. Yes, an election is coming along!
The property asset bubble built up over 10 years. We had a sudden release of hot air, but houses are still overpriced, supported by artificially low interest rates. My savings (and those of the elderly) attract little income.
No NuLabour politician will take notice about what has been written here. What a shame! Now is the opportunity to fix things, or at least stop things getting worse. Oh dear!
2. Fly By Night said...
"She is baffled that the Government has used billions of pounds of public money to rescue the banks without insisting on any change in behaviour."
The bafflement would seem to be due to the premise that the government is sensible, capable, and conscientious in doing its job. The premise is suspect!
3. dgj said...
Politicians think politics and businessmen think business!
4. shipbuilder said...
"She is baffled that the Government has used billions of pounds of public money to rescue the banks without insisting on any change in behaviour."
Because it is in their (and their banking buddies') interests and they can get away with it.
5. japanese uncle said...
"She is baffled that the Government has used billions of pounds of public money to rescue the banks without insisting on any change in behaviour." as she is naive enough to believe that the 'Government' is really governing everything including banks rather than being governed.
6. will said...
The point she is making is that we aint' seen nothing yet - and I agree. Asset prices have yet to fall a long way.
7. charlie brooker said...
"She is baffled that the Government has used billions of pounds of public money to rescue the banks without insisting on any change in behaviour."
That's cos the banks boss the government around, not the other way around.
8. charlie brooker said...
Ironic how three of us all saw the same quote and thought the same thing!
9. Al Young said...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDFETK0JQUI
do please take a look at our take on our "socially useless"banking community it may give you a smile
10. The Spaniard said...
From her book, The Coming First World Debt Crisis, I judge that she understands very well that the money power is greater than that of any government. I suspect that she is feigning bafflement in order to stimulate debate within the MSM. Her comment about the danger of being too far ahead of the debate is telling.
11. 51ck-6-51x said...
My comment isn't yet displayed @ The Times so it's going here...
Ann, I was also fairly surprised that there had been little attempt to change financial regulation. The reason, I believe, is that UK-PLC has successfully marketed it's biggest capital as a modern financial hub and does not want to forgo any future benefits thereof ( i.e. tax during the next boom ). Furthermore we can already see that the financial space has changed since the start of the crisis in a self-regulatory manner - the problem really is that this did not occur sooner than it did, this I feel is actually due to the presence of regulation*, subsidies, taxation levels, e.t.c.
Personally I think light-touch is the worst form of regulation, if one designs a system with rules they must be rigid so that the agents therein know where they stand. Personally though I am an anarcho-capitalist and believe we should remove all regulation ( subsidies, taxes and borders included ) but it's not going to happen any time soon ( or will it?! Welcome to Crunch-II ).
12. 51ck-6-51x said...
charlie - make that four!
13. 51ck-6-51x said...
Charlie
- I also inadvertently used your catch phrase, 'Now go away!', in a post that has since been removed ( it was blatant advertising ). So now you know you have subliminally aroused me, and I feel dirty - Ooh, I bet you love that , don't you?!
- Now for some of my own advertising. Next time you need a production co-ordinator or junior production manager can you please consider my better half? She has worked at Endamol before ( your company is still under Endemol, right? ) so would make your ref check easy and it would mean I am not forced to watch something as awe inspiringly magnificent as 'Snog Marry Avoid?' ( urgh, even the title is awful, what with the lack of punctuation ). Just ask the friendly H.R. guys about a miss Joyce. Thanks for taking the time to listen, now go ...nah I can't! Keep up the fantastic 'work'.
14. charlie brooker said...
Don't forget to watch!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00g34fg
Its the show to end 'em all. Geddit? Endemol? Urgh! Please yourselves!
15. Essexman said...
Parliament is in recess and MPs are on a well earned holiday - but when they get back.....!!!!!
What will happen when they get back?
In October.....ahhemmmm? Anyone?
16. icarus said...
She says a lot but there is little linking cause and effect. I think if you take the view that banks have a mighty influence on governments then a lot falls into place. Regulation is a complete joke because of the banks' hold over regulators. The SEC in the US is a case in point. There is a great deal of to-ing and fro-ing of high-ranking SEC officials between the SEC and big law firms representing the major banks. The move from SEC official to partner of such firms is a common one. Many even go back to a lower-paying SEC post to put out fires (quell securities fraud cases). Many complaints pointing out that Madoff's was a huge Ponzi scheme reached the SEC and were quashed (Madoff was closely linked from way back with the 4-5 major Wall Street investment banks - they lost little as his scams were directed at others.)
One informant wrote the following letter to the SEC and published it: "As SEC's director of Enforcemnt (Linda) Thomsen presided over the firing of her investigating attorney, Gary Aguirre in 2005, shortly after Aguirre disclosed to Paul Berger, Thomsen's immediate subordinate, evidence of insider trading by a hedge fund. Berger learned that Aguirre's evidence pointed to Wall Street player John Mack (head of Morgan Stanley) as the 'tipper' in insider trading by Pequot Capital, a major hedge fund. Berger fired Aguirre and closed the investigation into Pequot.
"After a statute of limitations expired foreclosing action against Mack, Berger resigned from the SEC to accept a position with a major Wall Street law firm. This was the firm which had contacted the SEC on behalf of Morgan Stanley to enquire whether Mack was exposed to any pending investigation. (In his new position) Berger exercised authority in the Pequot enquiry and in the enquiry by Morgan Stanley.
"Two senate committees investigated Aguirre's firing and...found appearances of impropriety......"
Thomsen left the SEC in February 2009 to take up a partnership with Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP, a corporate law firm that represents major Wall Strret banks.
The busy two-way movement of indivuals between the SEC and Wall Street law firms that undertake tens of thousands of billable hours for the banks regulated by the SEC is enough in itself to condemn the regulatory system.
Earlier this month a US District court judge didn't like the small of a deal cooked up between the SEC and Bank of America. The SEC accepted a very small ($33 million) settlement from BofA in a lawsuit against the bank for withholding from investors information that it had approved of Merrill Lynch's paying out $ billions in bonuses as part of BofA's rescue/acquisition of ML. (Both banks received massive bailout money.) The judge complained that the bases of both the complaint and the settlement were opaque.
17. icarus said...
er...@12 first line, last para change the first "small" to "smell".
18. charlie brooker said...
@12,
What we have at present is not democracy but a banking kleptocracy.
19. clockslinger said...
Not sure I like the cut of this womans jib all that much. "Instead (of rescuing banks) public money should be used to bail out households and businesses threatened by bankupcy". Well now, I am not in favour of bailing out banks with my money but there again I am no more in favour of it being given to people who borrowed too much either (in the hope of making a killing on property in many cases no doubt). If we can't afford a decent and universal welfare system why should only those who borrowed stupidly be the main target of public largesse? Moral hazard taken away from banks is proving to be an unmitigated disaster, so I am not at all sure how it is a vast improvement to socialise the financial risks taken by individuals. If the argument is that money put in lower down the chain gets spent on essentials and creates more jobs, well yes, I'd buy that...insofar as it is a good argument for why a higher minimum wage and an increase benefits and pensions to the very poorest in society rather than those most reckless with debt.
20. alan_540 said...
maybe if debt were swapped for equity then it would work?
21. down wave said...
18. charlie brooker said...@12, What we have at present is not democracy but a banking kleptocracy.
Absolutely correct, Money as God, Yet not devine or creative with it, not 'providing' as mother nature does. Grabbing money for security of their egos, Yet not knowing that money does not provide security against the fear of death or death itself, short sighted outlook. Most people will prefer to die with their money than circulate it before their death with love to fellow human companions, or even spend it on medical treatments.
Outrageous, there is only one outcome for all of this.
22. Cotton Eyed Joe said...
may i suggest that instead of giving money to people who have borrowed recklessly, those prudent souls, like myself, that havent played absolutely any part in this financial fiasco, should be rewarded for their prudence. Maybe in tax rebates, cash handouts, etc.... to show the reckless that prudence is the best way forward......we can then educate them on their financial illiteracy...the meek should inherit the earth instead of the weak....sorry, i just saw a pig fly past the window.....
23. Mikelivingstone said...
The problem is most of our politicians are not smart enough to realise the confidence trick being deployed by the banks and City of London, and for those that do, it purely serves as a way to support profligate Government spending.
There is a money-go-round where the Bank of England through quantitative easing buys Government Bonds at over inflated prices from the banks, effectively giving them free money. They then use much of this money to buy new bonds from the Government. This enables the Government to borrow cheaply to keep the profligate spending going, whilst the banks get to make a safe, all be it low interest rate loan. Cash not taken up by the Government in this way ends up in other places such as the multitude of speculative casino operations run by the City.
The casino operations work rather like this. Imagine you have 3 gamblers, who agree to a game of poker. They each borrow £50k from a bank to use in the game. Player 1 wins and walks away with £120k, Player 2 holds onto to £30k and Player 3 loses everything. Player 3 now goes bankrupt, player 2 is an impaired debt as he only has £30k, and Player 3 is considered a roaringly successful player who has special and unique talent. Meanwhile the bank is now forced to right off £50k from player 3 and £20k form player 2 and so requires support from the taxpayer.
Now imagine an entire industry base on this principle and you have the UK banking sector.