simonsaid Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 It was very effective at funnelling wealth to the centre and to the elites even as a Dickensian world of poverty existed below. Commodities, shipping insurance, joint stock companies were the foundation stones of the City. But when it waned, a large part of that funnelling of wealth seems to have been replaced by loading credit onto us via property, by skimming people's savings and investments and scamming. Big Bang seems to have marked the transition from Empire to an Empire of Credit with only a short period post war where we were shedding the Empire and seeking to carve out a manufacturing future. It in effect reinstated that 19th century world which we are witnessing play out in front of us year by year. The manufacturing industry started way before the end of the WW2. Some massive companies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byron78 Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 (edited) Thatcher was the luckiest(north sea oil) and most overrated(the big bang is a disaster) pm. We agree! Happy New Year. Edited December 31, 2014 by byron78 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonsaid Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 Some ex PM's getting slated on here. Was anyone any good?? I know John Mayor seems to be liked. But he did'nt reverse any of Thatchers policies did he, the manufactoring base was still being off shored, council houses stock being sold without being replaced. Any else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byron78 Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 Nearly 3 million manufacturing jobs lost under Thatcher as well (note: a further 1 million lost under Blair/Brown). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campervanman Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 Was it all Thatcher's fault? well probably not but if you ask yourself if the events leading up to 2008 could have happened without the deregulation of the 1980's then you should arrive at an answer that points to Thatcher and her government being the architects of the system that allowed irresponsible financial practices to flourish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oracle Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 (edited) She's certainly culpable. But so are those who came after and further deregulated/failed to spot the problems building. depends what you mean by culpable. having massive unions holding the country to ransom vis a vis 3 day working weeks,power blackouts ,bins not emptied and even crematoria not fully manned was very much the fault of "old labour" (i am still young enough to remember stuff like 3 month waiting lists for a GPO telephone line to be installed) so was british leyland...what could have been a viable company laid waste because of sweatshop-owner mentality at the top and commie I want freebies for no legwork at the bottom. both ends of the spectrum at fault IMHO. Edited December 31, 2014 by oracle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 She was warned about big bang, poll tax, selling council houses (without allowing replacement stock), and a dozen other disasters. And yet, still worshipped by too many numpties. Makes you understand why people like Pinochet, Marcos, Peron got away with it so long and are still missed, even though they turned their countries to $hyte. . +1 Still hate Blair more though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 It is obvious if there is any asset inflation everybody including banks will start speculating and there is not almost any regulation, which can prevent it. The point is that banks should not be involved in trading on their own behalf with depositors money- or with the implicit backing of the state. Their business is supposed to be lending money, not speculating on asset prices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonsaid Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Nearly 3 million manufacturing jobs lost under Thatcher as well (note: a further 1 million lost under Blair/Brown). Anyone know for the drop in 1997/98, regulation change? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkHorseWaits-NoMore Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Anyone know for the drop in 1997/98, regulation change? The Asian financial crisis was a period of financial crisis that gripped much of East Asia beginning in July 1997 and raised fears of a worldwide economic meltdown due to financial contagion. That might have had some effect plus NuLabor(old Tory) sticking to the previous gov't restricted spending plans for a couple of years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Lorne Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 (edited) Some ex PM's getting slated on here. Was anyone any good?? I know John Mayor seems to be liked. But he did'nt reverse any of Thatchers policies did he, the manufactoring base was still being off shored, council houses stock being sold without being replaced. Any else? ...hah ..ha...John Major handed Nuliebour the strongest economy in Europe in '97...Blair / Brown did not reverse any of Thatcher's policies ...but Brown did introduce the Financiai Services Authority and stripped the BofE of it's regulatory powers ...and Knighted the Heads of High Street Banks before they failed and before he and Balls trashed our financial economy .....only Labour can wreck Britain.....and they will do again ...with Alex Salmond as Deputy PM.....to assist them in coalition ...and demolition.... Edited January 1, 2015 by South Lorne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonsaid Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 ...hah ..ha...John Major handed Nuliebour the strongest economy in Europe in '97...Blair / Brown did not reverse any of Thatcher's policies ...but Brown did introduce the Financiai Services Authority and stripped the BofE of it's regulatory powers ...and Knighted the Heads of High Street Banks before they failed and before he and Balls trashed our financial economy .....only Labour can wreck Britain.....and they will do again ...with Alex Salmond as Deputy PM.....to assist them in coalition ...and demolition.... Have the Tories reversed any of the things you mention in their tenure of the last 5 years....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Lorne Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 (edited) Have the Tories reversed any of the things you mention in their tenure of the last 5 years....... ...I believe the FSA was removed, a few Knighthoods were removed, Gordon Brown was removed by the coalition but Balls is still sniffing around ...the actual magnitude of the demolition to the economy has taken years to understand ...but the very fact many UK residents find it difficult to move to employment from benefits while jobs have to be filled by immigrants and those in jobs have to rely on benefits to keep afloat, reveals the armageddon nature of the Liebour destruction ....almost a communist ghetto ...and the final destruction appears to be planned starting from May 2015..... ....mimic that... Edited January 1, 2015 by South Lorne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonsaid Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 ...I believe the FSA was removed, a few Knighthoods were removed, Gordon Brown was removed by the coalition but Balls is still sniffing around ...the actual magnitude of the demolition to the economy has taken years to understand ...but the very fact many UK residents find it difficult to move to employment from benefits while jobs have to be filled by immigrants and those in jobs have to rely on benefits to keep afloat, reveals the armageddon nature of the Liebour destruction ....almost a communist ghetto ...and the final destruction appears to be planned starting from May 2015..... ....mimic that... FSA was replaced with the FCA, the Tories still pilling in the immigrants to the ghettos, in work benefits to the masses can't be removed...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Lorne Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 FSA was replaced with the FCA, the Tories still pilling in the immigrants to the ghettos, in work benefits to the masses can't be removed...... ...the FSA introduced by Brown under Liebour had to be replaced with something .. ...as it was ineffective and proved as such before... during and after the crash...the country needs immigrants until the government,whichever, can unravel the dependence of home workers on benefits. Labour allowed the deluge of free movement in Europe into the UK, when even the Germans and others restricted the numbers into their countries as the infrastructure had to be planned ..but not the pro Europe Labour party like the Liberals who are pro+ Europe .... the communist ghettos are not related to immigrants...the phrase refers to the state dependent economic structure and culture left by Labour ...try changing that in a few years ....Germany has unravelled this in East Germany ....Labour under Brown created state dependence and thus eradicated many individuals' economic freedoms ..the living wage is hard to come by for many ....maybe that will clarify things for you..... ...and do you think Labour will solve these issues with the SNP to keep them in power in a coalition ....?..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonsaid Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 ...the FSA introduced by Brown under Liebour had to be replaced with something .. ...as it was ineffective and proved as such before... during and after the crash...the country needs immigrants until the government,whichever, can unravel the dependence of home workers on benefits. Labour allowed the deluge of free movement in Europe into the UK, when even the Germans and others restricted the numbers into their countries as the infrastructure had to be planned ..but not the pro Europe Labour party like the Liberals who are pro+ Europe .... the communist ghettos are not related to immigrants...the phrase refers to the state dependent economic structure and culture left by Labour ...try changing that in a few years ....Germany has unravelled this in East Germany ....Labour under Brown created state dependence and thus eradicated many individuals' economic freedoms ..the living wage is hard to come by for many ....maybe that will clarify things for you..... ...and do you think Labour will solve these issues with the SNP to keep them in power in a coalition ....?..... Bla,bla,bla de fooking bla bla, fooking use garmmer you c^nt. There is no changing it, regardless of rosette colour. The Brown dependence bought time, the Tories know it can't be unwound. No party can reverse what is coming to the UK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonsaid Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Oh the irony that was meant to be 'grammar' and not 'garmmer' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evetsm Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Can't stand Redwood. He makes more from the financial markets/housing bubble than he does as an MP. The epitomy of vested interest. yes. Redwood is far from a free market libertarian, he loves HTB, he loves rigged low rates that is levitating the house price bubble, he supports the central bank. He loves govt assisted finacialization. Look where he came from, he is a banker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Knimbies who say No Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 (edited) By the way, this article is a little fuller, showing the battle raging within the Party itself with Willetts on one side and Redwood on the other. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f3c0d500-8537-11e4-bb63-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3NTTkmN1p Basically, Redwood is and always has been an a*se. Nominally intelligent, he obviously is very stupid at the same time. He cannot read people nor how they may react to the real world. He has a naive view of the world that is mechanistic and suited the 'efficient markets' hypothesis and 'rational actors' theories of the time. Of course that suits more clever people who know that by keeping things unregulated they would be able to exploit systems and human emotions for tendencies to overdo things. Redwood was the archetypal 'useful fool' as some might say - and one who has been extremely well paid to be that useful, influential, Randian, libertarian fool. One of my relatives is an avid reader of Redwood's blog(and often recommends it to me). Your excellent description also describes my relative- Oxbridge maths grad, naive as they get, very sure of views, emotionally bereft(I guess this is the 'killer app' for an overly dry, mechanical view of the world) and a complete ar*e to boot. Edited January 2, 2015 by Joan of The Tower Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evetsm Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 (edited) The point is that banks should not be involved in trading on their own behalf with depositors money- or with the implicit backing of the state. Their business is supposed to be lending money, not speculating on asset prices.exactly. What part of the free market says that the govt has got your back. The Keynesians thought we had a free market without rules that caused the collapse, they are wrong. It was the central bank and govt who created moral hazard by removing any risk from bank lending by promising them the central bank and govg would cover any losses. THAT is not even close to a free market, that is fascism.It is strange. Pseudo free marketeers like Redwood, a former banker, think financialization is a huge success, he sees no bubbles. Keynesians think the fres market was a disaster and caused the crises. They are both wrong. There was/is no free market, by definition. Govt is underwriting the entire mess. Govt caused the mess. Edited January 2, 2015 by evetsm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkG Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 It's a complete myth deregulation makes the free market function in a healthy manner. You mean I can just start up my own 'bank' in my garage and 'lend' people money I don't have? Cool. Oh, no, I can't. So what do modern banks have to do with a free market? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProleStore Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 You mean I can just start up my own 'bank' in my garage and 'lend' people money I don't have? Cool. Oh, no, I can't. So what do modern banks have to do with a free market? You mean I can just fence off some unused land, and start building a house on it? No, I can't. What do enclosure, land clearance, planning restrictions, a centralised land registry or any feature whatsoever of the land 'market' have to do with a free market? So where are all the free-market advocates who will admit that? Why is it that an argument for 'free-markets' almost always means forelock tugging special pleading for the ruling classes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spyguy Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 One of my relatives is an avid reader of Redwood's blog(and often recommends it to me). Your excellent description also describes my relative- Oxbridge maths grad, naive as they get, very sure of views, emotionally bereft(I guess this is the 'killer app' for an overly dry, mechanical view of the world) and a complete ar*e to boot. I checked Redwood's wikipedia entry. He has a degree in Modern History. Hmm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evetsm Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 (edited) The reason the Fed was created was because of the regular self inflicted bank crashes, financial crises and depressions. It has been successful in so far as their frequency has reduced although Minsky followers say that may be at the expense of amplitude. Lending credit against assets and self referencing asset values do not mix with human desires to get rich quick. yes, the amplitudes are far bigger. Now we have to big to fail.Free markets do not prevent failure, they just ensure that there is failure more quickly, when people run out of their own money and before it is likely to become systemic. Now there is only failure when we run out of state/bank money, and that ensures we spiral into too big to fail, which inevitably results in catastrophic, systemic failure. govt, by creating moral hazard leads to systemic economic disaster. Edited January 3, 2015 by evetsm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Lorne Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Bla,bla,bla de fooking bla bla, fooking use garmmer you c^nt. There is no changing it, regardless of rosette colour. The Brown dependence bought time, the Tories know it can't be unwound. No party can reverse what is coming to the UK. ....ha..ha...forget the grammar ...glad to see you are beginning to understand it all...to a certain extent ....Brown wasted our time and started the real rot and destruction ...so you are a bit out there ....maybe Alex Salmond will be able to give Red Ed some guidance ...but at least it will be different...if you vote Labour it will be... big bang doom.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.