Monday, Feb 22, 2010
A coalition could be interesting
Telegraph: Vince Cable, the 'people's choice for chancellor', explains his plans for reform
Before I go, I ask for just one more prediction: where's the bubble? Cable doesn't blink: "There's something very strange going on with property prices. The big correction in overvalued prices hasn't happened. There's been a partial correction about six months after the crash. But not a proper one. This is worrying." Let's never forget, Mr Cable has been right before.
Posted by dill @ 07:19 AM (2251 views) Add Comment
19 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. wdbeast said...
I think Cable stands a very good chance of being chancellor under a coalition government.
The trouble is, if we need a coalition government, we will already be so much ITS that he will not be able to help.
2. doomwatch said...
It's a shame Clegg tries to be a Tony/Dave clone, Cable could have won it for them with such
weak "main" parties; benefits mad Labour and the Tory slashers so they can give the rich
even more tax breaks.
3. Eternal Sceptic said...
Unfortunately for a politician, the man is both astute and honest.
4. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.
5. freemanphil said...
Vince Cable seeks regulations. Nonsense, we should not compromise and regulate a fraudulent banking system. We must re-instate common law banking and, phase out fractional reserves. Simply not bailout out the banks would have wiped them out.
6. letthemfall said...
"Simply not bailout out the banks would have wiped them out."
And probably the rest of us with them. But otherwise I'd liked to have seen them go down.
7. mark wadsworth said...
Re "bailing out banks", there is absolutely nothing to worry about and hence no need for this, banks don't go bust in the traditional sense - if shareholders' capital goes negative, then the balance gets deducted from long term bonds etc. Sure, if there is a threat of a bank run, it is perfectly fair and reasonable for the government to step in to prevent panic, but then they ought to hand it over to the bankruptcy courts to transfer the good stuff and deposits and savings account into a New Bank and all the other rubbish gets left behind in the old bank.
And I wish people would stop harping on about FRB, all it means is that banks can onlend deposits to be able to earn the interest from borrowers that they need to pay interest to savers and depositors (or cover the costs of running personal bank accounts for free).
If you don't like FRB, then please make it clear which of the two models you prefer (or both):
1. Banks which want to lend money have to be funded entirely by share capital and are not allowed to take deposits.
2. Banks which take deposits have to keep it all in a safe and have to charge account holders monthly charges to cover the cost of running the accounts.
Seeing as no depositor is forced to hold large sums of money in the bank (you could pay for the privilege of keeping large amounts of coins and notes in a safe and just keep small amounts in a bank account to cover direct debits and so on) I don't see what there is to worry about. In practice, most people have very little money in the bank on average anyway.
The problem is not FRB as such, it is the "fraction" that is important - and most people merrily fail to distinguish between (a) the old fashioned "fraction" which means the amount of assets that are held in physical cash or near cash; and (b) the more modern "fraction" which is the % of total assets which are financed by share capital (so called 'Basel' rules).
AFAIC, it is only (b) that we should concern ourselves with. Banks have been getting away with having a (b) that is less than 5% of total assets, which is clearly dangerous - if they'd been forced to stay at 12.5% or above, none of this would have happened.
But there again, I stick to facts and logic, which is why I'd never make it as a politician.
8. braindeed said...
5. mark wadsworth said...
The problem is not FRB as such, it is the "fraction" that is important - and most people merrily fail to distinguish between (a) the old fashioned "fraction" which means the amount of assets that are held in physical cash or near cash; and (b) the more modern "fraction" which is the % of total assets which are financed by share capital (so called 'Basel' rules).
Well reasoned argument, summed up best by the paragraph above.
I think that the CDS scandal was, quite literally, criminal. A lot of the 'hedging' that is played out is immoral ( ....but who can blame anyone having a slice, under the current rules). Therein lies the rub - how can 'havens' be emasulated without creating the potentially greater evil of the NWO?
9. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.
10. letsgetreadytotumble said...
Vince has pulled the wool over many eyes.
He's a Fabian. That's all I need to know.
I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.
His mansion tax shows his pathological hatred for the establishment, just like his Labour mates (he used to be a Labour MP)
11. vacuouspolitician said...
Jar Jar Spoon Spoon
...back to the article!
A decent bloke and one of the best politicians we have.
Lets hope that people finally see through this Lab/Con punch and judy show...
12. Guiriduro said...
Any "fraction" which is not 100% is a problem. I've no problem with lending out existing deposits and shareholder capital for gain.
But if I ran a company, then divided up my capital and gave a 50% budget to R&D to spend, 50% to sales and marketing, and 50% to logistics (you can see where we're going with this), I'd be bust. My balance sheet wouldn't errr balance....
Just like a pyramid scheme. But oddly not a bank, for some obscure reason. "Ah but they're not all going to use it at the same time"?? Hmmmmmm....
13. vacuouspolitician said...
10. letsgetreadytotumble said...
lol. A perfect example of what pervades this site!
Jar Jar Spoon Spoon!
14. mander said...
Cable is the right person if not the only person to sort out the finances of this country.
15. letthemfall said...
"Vince has pulled the wool over many eyes.
He's a Fabian. That's all I need to know."
The deep thinkers are out in force today.
16. markj69 str05 said...
@2.. I tend to agree. The party seems to have put a face forward - One that they think fits the requirement of the sheeple. But, when you think that most of the population tend to sit on their @rses watching BB, Cory, and any other reality TV show, becoming ever-more obese, lathargic and docile. Wondering when their house value will increase again. And not giving a damn about society. It's a 'me, me, me' culture. Why on earth would they vote for a looker like VC (Sorry Vince no insult intended). The Con's even postered and promoted 'Air-brush Dave' - Unfortunately, their marketiers are playing the numbers game, and as much as you or i don't like it, 'Mr smiley face and nice hair', is going to attract votes.
Lib dems have a 'Mr smiley face and nice hair', and the most common sense speaking politician in the country. If they play there game right. They have a good chance. They just need a lot more exposure, promoting common sense views on the current situations, as a solid 'No-nonesense party' - (You can use that Vince if you like).
17. letsgetreadytotumble said...
Any of you guys ever bothered to find out about the Fabian society? I think Vince is as untrustworthy as any Labour front bencher. On Question Time (BBC) he went off on a rage about Etonians, like a pathological hatred for them. Showed signs of instability to me.
I can't see why anyone would recommend him after his mansion tax proposals. That was just absurd.
18. Ndg said...
Vince Cabal = wolf who appears as a sheep.
19. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.