This always makes me chuckle about Andy, everyone concerned in the Labour Party have already admitted that they made mistakes over regulation and fiscal policy prior to the crash, yet Andy refuses to accept it - I'm starting to wonder who is most deranged, Gordon Brown for convincing himself he had abolished the economic cycle, or Andy for being unable to admit his 'team' did anything wrong at all.
It is hilarious... :D
Politically minded apologies to help prevent voters deserting them is par for the course. The truth is, as my other post, that banks rule countries, not politicians.
The Rothschilds
"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it's profits or so dependant on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from that class." — Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863
"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild
Sorry to disappoint but wages are now rising faster than inflation. it's you and Labour who need to think of a new slogan.
As you know wages have fallen, benefits have been cut, public services to, even wounded ex-soldiers and war widows have had their pension entitlement cut. Who has done well? Well, bankers have done very nicely, thanks to a multi-billion subsidy from the rest of us.
You know when you put spin on hyperbole on this it makes you look desperate, right? The US subprime crisis was the trigger (there always is one when a credit boom ends), but we as a nation had extended our own levels of credit to very high levels. That was entirely under the power of Gordon Brown and the regulatory system he put in place that failed.
.
We had not. Prior to the banking crash UK public debt was not a problem, it was actually lower than when the Conservatives left office. I'm surprised you weren't aware of that!
As you know wages have fallen, benefits have been cut, public services to, even wounded ex-soldiers and war widows have had their pension entitlement cut. Who has done well? Well, bankers have done very nicely, thanks to a multi-billion subsidy from the rest of us.
This always makes me chuckle about Andy, everyone concerned in the Labour Party have already admitted that they made mistakes over regulation and fiscal policy prior to the crash, yet Andy refuses to accept it - I'm starting to wonder who is most deranged, Gordon Brown for convincing himself he had abolished the economic cycle, or Andy for being unable to admit his 'team' did anything wrong at all.
You know when you put spin on hyperbole on this it makes you look desperate, right? The US subprime crisis was the trigger
No, it was the cause. It's where billions of pounds if our money went.
.
(there always is one when a credit boom ends), but we as a nation had extended our own levels of credit to very high levels. That was entirely under the power of Gordon Brown and the regulatory system he put in place that failed.
Failed to do what, specifically, that it could have reasonably expected to have done at the time. Preferably with examples of what the Coalition are doing now, albeit with the benefit of hindsight.
Do you expect any of us to believe you'd be making the same comments if it were a Conservative chancellor in charge during that period? Of course not. You are supporting him on purely party political grounds.
Eh? He presided over the worst economic slump in almost 100 years (in the UK of course). It was his job to see this coming and prepare for it, but he failed.
Same question as above.
Brown made the case for “light-touch” regulation as banks grew reckless and the housing bubble inflated,
So what "heavier touches" would have made a difference? Preferably with examples of what the Coalition are doing now, albeit with the benefit of hindsight.
he increased public spending too much before 2008 instead of cutting debt while he could.
Yet if all that spending was so unnecessary, why have the Coalition cut so little of it, see my earlier comments about the COI.
He should pushed against the economic dominance of the City of London instead of tapping it to pay for expanded public services.
How? Could you get any more vague?
He could have left us much better prepared for the bust that follows a credit boom that's are sure as night follows day.
How would having fewer schools and hospitals help with that exactly?
Alas, the ego of Brown was such that he thought he had ended the economic cycle where all he did was ride the wave of a credit and banking boom.
Not anticipating the suicidal way bankers were just throwing all our money away.
Hang on - on another thread you were trying to claim that the reason the UK growth was aneamic was that Osborne had slashed spending :D:D
No, just that the few spending cuts he had made were counter productive. You can see from our spending figures that he hasn't actually cut much.
To give us a surplus in 2006 35bn would have had to be cut from the budget, did Osborne manage to find that much in superfluous spending in his first budget?
We had not. Prior to the banking crash UK public debt was not a problem,
Well there was a problem, it was rising at precisely the wrong time in the cycle. That is as long as you were not like Gordon Brown and the Labour Party who thought that they had abolished the economic cycle.
No, just that the few spending cuts he had made were counter productive. You can see from our spending figures that he hasn't actually cut much.
If his 'cuts' were that small (and I agree they were non-existant) then they couldn't have had any effect on growth could they?
To give us a surplus in 2006 35bn would have had to be cut from the budget, did Osborne manage to find that much in superfluous spending in his first budget?
Hmm - 2006 at the end of the longest continuous period of growth in modern times and 2010 immediately after the deepest crash since the 30's.
Yes, I can see why you think they are equivalent... (now where did I put that rolleyes smiley?:D)
No it wasn't at all under the power of Brown, nor the regulator. It was banks gambling and when they lost, the asset to lending ratio was out of kilter by some margin. This is because of the leverage of deposits by some 30x. The bail outs restored the ratio and QE provided liquidity as the overnight money ,markets had dried up. This was because no-one knew how much exposure anybody else had and didn't want to lend money for it only to disappear down a black hole.
This was banking in it's raw state being shown up for the game of chance it is. Purchasing 'investments' which were nothing more than other banks risks, sliced and diced and spread around. JPM were a big player in this. No lending regulations were broken, no other regulations were broken and Brown was not in a position to tell private banks not to carry out their day to day trading business.
Tories really need to stop this party political line and look at the real problem. Banks.
Of course that is in the power of politicians. The set the entire legal and regulatory framework. They could have set much higher capital ratios for example.
As you know wages have fallen, benefits have been cut, public services to, even wounded ex-soldiers and war widows have had their pension entitlement cut. Who has done well? Well, bankers have done very nicely, thanks to a multi-billion subsidy from the rest of us.
I've already shown you were wrong on UK banking pay which have fallen significantly, as have the number of people employed in financial services.
We had not. Prior to the banking crash UK public debt was not a problem, it was actually lower than when the Conservatives left office. I'm surprised you weren't aware of that!
As for the government, I know you are smart enough to know that a country should be running a surplus during a long period of economic growth and that Brown was not. You should not be defending him.
I deliberately said "the nation" which is much wider than just the government. Individuals and banks were both in debt to huge amounts. Most of the growth of the previous decade was built on cheap credit and low inflation due to the increased imports from overseas. Only a fool like Brown would believe this was a solid foundation to abolish boom and bust.
Failed to do what, specifically, that it could have reasonably expected to have done at the time. Preferably with examples of what the Coalition are doing now, albeit with the benefit of hindsight.
I have given you examples in the past which you have accepted. Examples include the requirement for Australian banks to hold higher quality capital and presume a higher loss given default ratio of 20% to residential mortgages rather than the 10% suggested under Basel. These and higher capital ratios had been in place in other countries at the time.
Brown on the other hand was going in exactly the different direction, telling the UK regulators to have a lighter touch over our Banks.
Yet if all that spending was so unnecessary, why have the Coalition cut so little of it, see my earlier comments about the COI.
As someone has already said, you were blaming the flat-lining economy on the coalition cuts and now you are saying they have only been "little"?
A little consistency wouldn't go amiss, Andy. In your haste to make party political attacks you are forgetting your own rhetoric. This is the problem when you have already formed a conclusion and are searching for any points that back them up - forgetting that you have 2 contradicting conclusions ;-)
If you read the article it says for 5 years up to April 2013. therefore the problem started in 2008 under a Labour government.
Yes, but it's not Labour who are saying the economy is doing well now, the Tories are. And people will hear that and wonder who's benefitting if they aren't.
Well there was a problem, it was rising at precisely the wrong time in the cycle. That is as long as you were not like Gordon Brown and the Labour Party who thought that they had abolished the economic cycle.
You need to look at how many years out of the last 40 the UK's debt has risen. Even if we'd matched the best budget surpluses of the last 40 years in the 5 years leading up to 2007 the UK's debt wouldn't be much smaller today, it might have paid for one bank bailout.
Of course that is in the power of politicians. The set the entire legal and regulatory framework. They could have set much higher capital ratios for example.
Even Basel 3 can't get that agreed, banks simply won't entertain the idea. They won't agree to any regulation that protects the country and reduces their trading habits.
It's the fractional reserve nature of banking that creates the risks, changing capital ratios, even if they could, wouldn't help. Only 100% reserve banking would but then takes away the massive advantage of creating money out of thin air for their own gains. Don't expect it to happen.
I'm still waiting for something specific to need to deny.
If his 'cuts' were that small (and I agree they were non-existant) then they couldn't have had any effect on growth could they?
That's where Osborne was so clever, he didn't make enough cuts to affect spending significantly but did make enough to choke off growth even before the Eurozone had problems.
Hmm - 2006 at the end of the longest continuous period of growth in modern times and 2010 immediately after the deepest crash since the 30's.
Yes, I can see why you think they are equivalent... (now where did I put that rolleyes smiley?:D)
You haven't understood or you are repeating your "something must be done" mantra.
If you are saying that a surplus should have been run in 2006 you are saying that Brown spent 35 billion quid on things he shouldn't have. Now I know that in a recession Govt spending inevitably rises but whatever you think he shouldn't have spent that specific 35 billion on in 2006 would surely still apply in 2010.
For example, if you think there's certain item of defence spending in 2006 that we shouldn't have made are they suddenly required in a recession?
I don't know what items of the 2006 budget you think shouldn't have been put in to turn it into a surplus, but I can't imagine many that would suddenly be required in austerity 2010 if they were deemed a bit of a superfluous luxury in prosperous 2006.
As for the government, I know you are smart enough to know that a country should be running a surplus during a long period of economic growth and that Brown was not. You should not be defending him.
I deliberately said "the nation" which is much wider than just the government. Individuals and banks were both in debt to huge amounts. Most of the growth of the previous decade was built on cheap credit and low inflation due to the increased imports from overseas. Only a fool like Brown would believe this was a solid foundation to abolish boom and bust.
Is that a regular occurrence or a pipe dream?
Perhaps you can tell us how many times it's happened in say, the last thirty years?
As for the government, I know you are smart enough to know that a country should be running a surplus during a long period of economic growth and that Brown was not. You should not be defending him.
I deliberately said "the nation" which is much wider than just the government. Individuals and banks were both in debt to huge amounts. Most of the growth of the previous decade was built on cheap credit and low inflation due to the increased imports from overseas. Only a fool like Brown would believe this was a solid foundation to abolish boom and bust.
And what would you call the growth we have at this moment?
Of course that is in the power of politicians. The set the entire legal and regulatory framework. They could have set much higher capital ratios for example.
Now that's one good specific example. But could they actually have been reasonably expected to do that at the time? Was there any significant opinion saying that our economy should be throttled in such a way?
Look at the howls of protest we've had at the increased capital ratios now, even with hindsight and from the industry responsible for wrecking the global economy.
Even Basel 3 can't get that agreed, banks simply won't entertain the idea. They won't agree to any regulation that protects the country and reduces their trading habits.
As I said, Australia put in tougher, smarter rules and other countries' banks such as in Turkey and Canada were hardly impacted. You don't need global agreements to regulate your own banking system.
It's the fractional reserve nature of banking that creates the risks, changing capital ratios, even if they could, wouldn't help. Only 100% reserve banking would but then takes away the massive advantage of creating money out of thin air for their own gains. Don't expect it to happen.
Of course changing capital ratios would help. You've just argued for a 100% ratio so how can you possibly argue that a level of say 90% not help banking stability more than a ratio of 5%?
Comments
Politically minded apologies to help prevent voters deserting them is par for the course. The truth is, as my other post, that banks rule countries, not politicians.
As you know wages have fallen, benefits have been cut, public services to, even wounded ex-soldiers and war widows have had their pension entitlement cut. Who has done well? Well, bankers have done very nicely, thanks to a multi-billion subsidy from the rest of us.
We had not. Prior to the banking crash UK public debt was not a problem, it was actually lower than when the Conservatives left office. I'm surprised you weren't aware of that!
Bankers pay tax too.
Hahahaha. Again, NOTHING specific.
No, just that the few spending cuts he had made were counter productive. You can see from our spending figures that he hasn't actually cut much.
To give us a surplus in 2006 35bn would have had to be cut from the budget, did Osborne manage to find that much in superfluous spending in his first budget?
You and the Tories may think the electorate too stupid to remember but Labour don't:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/dec/12/wage-rises-outpaced-inflation-official-data
There's a long way to go yet before people's pay packets have recovered.
If you read the article it says for 5 years up to April 2013. therefore the problem started in 2008 under a Labour government.
Well there was a problem, it was rising at precisely the wrong time in the cycle. That is as long as you were not like Gordon Brown and the Labour Party who thought that they had abolished the economic cycle.
LOL - thats it you keep denying the obvious
If his 'cuts' were that small (and I agree they were non-existant) then they couldn't have had any effect on growth could they?
Hmm - 2006 at the end of the longest continuous period of growth in modern times and 2010 immediately after the deepest crash since the 30's.
Yes, I can see why you think they are equivalent... (now where did I put that rolleyes smiley?:D)
Of course that is in the power of politicians. The set the entire legal and regulatory framework. They could have set much higher capital ratios for example.
I've already shown you were wrong on UK banking pay which have fallen significantly, as have the number of people employed in financial services.
As for the government, I know you are smart enough to know that a country should be running a surplus during a long period of economic growth and that Brown was not. You should not be defending him.
I deliberately said "the nation" which is much wider than just the government. Individuals and banks were both in debt to huge amounts. Most of the growth of the previous decade was built on cheap credit and low inflation due to the increased imports from overseas. Only a fool like Brown would believe this was a solid foundation to abolish boom and bust.
Yes but according to Andy, that's all the fault of the evil bankers. Labour did nothing wrong at all.
I have given you examples in the past which you have accepted. Examples include the requirement for Australian banks to hold higher quality capital and presume a higher loss given default ratio of 20% to residential mortgages rather than the 10% suggested under Basel. These and higher capital ratios had been in place in other countries at the time.
Brown on the other hand was going in exactly the different direction, telling the UK regulators to have a lighter touch over our Banks.
As someone has already said, you were blaming the flat-lining economy on the coalition cuts and now you are saying they have only been "little"?
A little consistency wouldn't go amiss, Andy. In your haste to make party political attacks you are forgetting your own rhetoric. This is the problem when you have already formed a conclusion and are searching for any points that back them up - forgetting that you have 2 contradicting conclusions ;-)
That truly is the most facile and lame response. You should be ashamed.
Yes, but it's not Labour who are saying the economy is doing well now, the Tories are. And people will hear that and wonder who's benefitting if they aren't.
You need to look at how many years out of the last 40 the UK's debt has risen. Even if we'd matched the best budget surpluses of the last 40 years in the 5 years leading up to 2007 the UK's debt wouldn't be much smaller today, it might have paid for one bank bailout.
Even Basel 3 can't get that agreed, banks simply won't entertain the idea. They won't agree to any regulation that protects the country and reduces their trading habits.
Banks Win Again As Proposed "Toughened" Basel Derivatives Rule "Seems To Have Evaporated"
It's the fractional reserve nature of banking that creates the risks, changing capital ratios, even if they could, wouldn't help. Only 100% reserve banking would but then takes away the massive advantage of creating money out of thin air for their own gains. Don't expect it to happen.
If you are saying that a surplus should have been run in 2006 you are saying that Brown spent 35 billion quid on things he shouldn't have. Now I know that in a recession Govt spending inevitably rises but whatever you think he shouldn't have spent that specific 35 billion on in 2006 would surely still apply in 2010.
For example, if you think there's certain item of defence spending in 2006 that we shouldn't have made are they suddenly required in a recession?
I don't know what items of the 2006 budget you think shouldn't have been put in to turn it into a surplus, but I can't imagine many that would suddenly be required in austerity 2010 if they were deemed a bit of a superfluous luxury in prosperous 2006.
Is that a regular occurrence or a pipe dream?
Perhaps you can tell us how many times it's happened in say, the last thirty years?
And what would you call the growth we have at this moment?
What is it based on?
Now that's one good specific example. But could they actually have been reasonably expected to do that at the time? Was there any significant opinion saying that our economy should be throttled in such a way?
Look at the howls of protest we've had at the increased capital ratios now, even with hindsight and from the industry responsible for wrecking the global economy.
As I said, Australia put in tougher, smarter rules and other countries' banks such as in Turkey and Canada were hardly impacted. You don't need global agreements to regulate your own banking system.
Of course changing capital ratios would help. You've just argued for a 100% ratio so how can you possibly argue that a level of say 90% not help banking stability more than a ratio of 5%?
A mix of things, but certainly debt is part of it.