Banking reform

[Serial_Apologist]

I see that the government is to allow SEVEN YEARS to ensue before the banks are made to comply with their proposals (whatever they are) to firewall all our savings accounts from the insane kinds of investment schemes that have brought the global economy to the mess it is in.

Private enterprise has been championed by mainstream political and economic thinking for more than 30 years as the fastest and most efficient means to get economic activity off the ground. It is worth reminding ourselves that, without the "benefits" of today's technologies, the NHS took a fraction of that time to establish.

Is this delay just another excuse to let the banks off the hook?

S-A

[Stillhomewardbound]

Sounds like it to me, and even given that, I see bank shares have taken a tumble today.

No doubt that's the financiers reeling back in horror at the prospect of not being allowed to go to the casino with other people's money!

Aren't times tough?!

[Lateralthinking1]

Yes and Osborne is the nearest I have seen in any British politician during my lifetime to an instinctive destroyer.

[vinteuil]

as so often, I think it's more complicated than that - and I don't think ring-fencing traditional banks from more speculative investment banking is a panacea. If you remember, our local crisis here started with the collapse of Northern Rock - which would have been considered as a safe haven under these rules. In other words it was not the crazy bank casino that 'went wrong' - it was the poor lending strategy of Northen Rock.

The larger worry is that Britain, which (despite the sniggering and condemnation) is a thriving centre of banking activity, will be unduly limited by inappropriate restrictions while our rivals in Berne, Frankfurt, New York, Singapore will yomp ahead.

It's not necessarily an obviously clever idea

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

And yet when they wanted schools to convert to "academies", they pushed through the legislation with the haste normally only considered for national emergencies.

[Mahlerei]

I heard a commentator point out that such ring-fencing wouldn't have prevented the last crisis, so what's the point?

I think the failure to regulate was the real cause of the collapse.

With the loss of so much manufacturing the banking sector is the largest contributor to the public coffers. If a flight were to happen we would be the worse for it.

[aeolium]

as so often, I think it's more complicated than that - and I don't think ring-fencing traditional banks from more speculative investment banking is a panacea. If you remember, our local crisis here started with the collapse of Northern Rock - which would have been considered as a safe haven under these rules. In other words it was not the crazy bank casino that 'went wrong' - it was the poor lending strategy of Northen Rock.

The larger worry is that Britain, which (despite the sniggering and condemnation) is a thriving centre of banking activity, will be unduly limited by inappropriate restrictions while our rivals in Berne, Frankfurt, New York, Singapore will yomp ahead.

It's not necessarily an obviously clever idea

I think it's a lot better than allowing the banks to try to sort out a solution themselves. After all, they are in a win-win position: either their reckless investment gambles come off and they make a pile, or the taxpayers bail them out and they make another pile.

And I don't agree that the 'local crisis' started with the collapse of Northern Rock. It was precisely because it was not a local crisis that NR was hit, as they were when the supply of inter-bank lending completely dried up in 2007-8. That was a result of a global crisis largely caused by the widespread and deregulated use of mortgage-backed securities (which itself would probably have been impossible under the Glass-Steagall Act).

The ICB proposals also include greater capital requirements for banks, especially for the larger banks. Incidentally, I don't think the international rival banks will 'yomp ahead', as I think similar restrictions will apply in the US (the Volcker proposal) and I would be very surprised if there is not more intensive regulation of banks in Europe given the enormous levels of debt exposure there.

I agree though that it is very complicated.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

i don't understand it any more except that the banks were all flogging each other dud notes and got found out ...

[Lateralthinking1]

Yes exactly. Unlike a colleague, I was able to enjoy my student summer break in the 1980s working in a hospital for the mentally ill. I had a lot of respect for the patients. Now I just find that every time the news arrives in the house, it is like hearing from a nut house. Genuinely. Every book I own about politics since about 1970 is going to a boot sale. I just don't recognise it as "here" anymore.

[teamsaint]

Yes exactly. Unlike a colleague, I was able to enjoy my student summer break in the 1980s working in a hospital for the mentally ill. I had a lot of respect for the patients. Now I just find that every time the news arrives in the house, it is like hearing from a nut house. Genuinely. Every book I own about politics since about 1970 is going to a boot sale. I just don't recognise it as "here" anymore.

I have stopped believing in almost ANY politics now. They are all playing the same game.
I am only going to vote for people who give an absolute commitment to house people, feed people, stop selling and using arms, completely, and i mean COMPLETELY restructure banking to make it a simple function for enable real activity to take place, amongst other things.
So probably not voting any time soon. We are run by the very few for the very few, and its time to wake up and oppose it.
oh , and the truth about 9/11 would be nice too.

[Simon]

...oh , and the truth about 9/11 would be nice too.

Here you are old chap.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

And this shows that even Auntie was part of the conspiracy too:

http://www.wtc7.net/foreknowledge.html#bbc

Hope that helps.

Simon

PS Edit: Sorry, I forgot this bit:

http://www.newstatesman.com/200609110028

- which is a good article from the NS. It features that darling of the anti-establishment, the traitor Shayler, who featured as a hero on the BBC and in other leftwing media some years ago. Some on the old boards thought he was the bee's knees, I believe. As you might expect. I was sorry for him, and still am, as he clearly had a problem. Apparently, he now believes he is a Messiah and is living dressed as a woman in a squat somewhere in Surrey...

[Serial_Apologist]

A Towering Infernal...

[teamsaint]

Here you are old chap.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

And this shows that even Auntie was part of the conspiracy too:

http://www.wtc7.net/foreknowledge.html#bbc

Hope that helps.

Simon

PS Edit: Sorry, I forgot this bit:

http://www.newstatesman.com/200609110028

- which is a good article from the NS. It features that darling of the anti-establishment, the traitor Shayler, who featured as a hero on the BBC and in other leftwing media some years ago. Some on the old boards thought he was the bee's knees, I believe. As you might expect. I was sorry for him, and still am, as he clearly had a problem. Apparently, he now believes he is a Messiah and is living dressed as a woman in a squat somewhere in Surrey...

trying to discredit witnesses is part of the security system.

Pretty easy to do really.
Its the lies that governments tell that bother me.

[Simon]

trying to discredit witnesses is part of the security system.

Pretty easy to do really.
Its the lies that governments tell that bother me.

I think most government lies bother most of us, and there are surely no governments that don't tell them. Albeit as a result of various different motives.

But I'm afraid I don't understand your point in your first sentence. Would you like to expand?

[teamsaint]

people who oppose official views on events like 9/11 are routinely "discredited" .

and those with real inside knowledge are in danger too.......too many "suicides" around if you ask me.