OminousPoultry Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 No comprehensive banking collapse during the 1940s to 1980s period of regulation adopted by governments of all shades. Two major finnacial crashes just prior to and since, however. This is where hyperbole lets political dogmatists down. All this and no mention of "Technological shift"? I guess is that this wouldn't serve your purpose though...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 All this and no mention of "Technological shift"? I guess is that this wouldn't serve your purpose though...... Tell me what you mean by technological shift (or is it "Technological shift?") and maybe we can talk. What do you think my purpose is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 (edited) All this and no mention of "Technological shift"? Technology isnt a major factor in the effect the basic principles that regulation would of had... Technology played a part in the first crash...due to a hurricane knocking out a large potion of the financial services computer equipment...but you still can not get away from the problems caused by the lack of regulation... I do not see how "technology" played a major role in the latest crash... Technology is just a tool... Edited September 25, 2009 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Technology isnt a major factor in the effect the basic principles that regulation would of had... Technology played a part in the first crash...due to a hurricane knocking out a large potion of the financial services computer equipment...but you still can not get away from the problems caused by the lack of regulation... I do not see how "technology" played a major role in the latest crash... Technology is just a tool... What would a regulator have done? How would he have not only foreseen the coming problem but decided what to do about it? Imagining that because the Government does something it is omniscient and omnipowerful makes no more sense than believing that there is an invisible hand or market directing outcomes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 (edited) What would a regulator have done? How would he have not only foreseen the coming problem but decided what to do about it? Imagining that because the Government does something it is omniscient and omnipowerful makes no more sense than believing that there is an invisible hand or market directing outcomes. Tackling your question fully would take about 100 pages To keep it simple... I would of suggested that a regulator would of taken issue with some of the toxic loans the banks took on...the banks simply where taking blind risks a lot of time... I would suggest that at the first sign off danger a regulator would of advised the bank to cut their loses instead of taking further risks (which did happen)... It is impossible to say with absolute certainty that regulations of the banks would of granteed this mess would not have happened. The majority of "experts" seem to think it would of made a difference though. Not being an investment banker I can only take what little I know, the word of these experts to be frank and apply a bit of common sense and hindsight. The banks should of been regulated... Edited September 25, 2009 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 What would a regulator have done? How would he have not only foreseen the coming problem but decided what to do about it? Imagining that because the Government does something it is omniscient and omnipowerful makes no more sense than believing that there is an invisible hand or market directing outcomes. I thought your kind did believe the latter? Otherwise what's the point? Government may not have been able to stop the technological change that made possible the securitised debt options and other exotic financial innovations that caused the crash, but it wa the removal of regulations, and the accompanying culture of excessive bonuses, that fuelled the taking of foolish risks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 No comprehensive banking collapse during the 1940s to 1980s period of regulation adopted by governments of all shades. Two major finnacial crashes just prior to and since, however. This is where hyperbole lets political dogmatists down. Hmmm. No comprehensive banking collapse, per se - unless, that is, you include the Bank of England in 1976. Although that wasn't so much a banking collapse as an outright country collapse. God Bless the IMF, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Hmmm. No comprehensive banking collapse, per se - unless, that is, you include the Bank of England in 1976. Although that wasn't so much a banking collapse as an outright country collapse. God Bless the IMF, eh? Like you say though it wasn't really a banking collapse though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 (edited) Like you say though it wasn't really a banking collapse though... No, but it ties in quite nicely with government policy on finance and financial regulation. The former being to allow the country's finances to get into such a terrifying state (are you listening Gordon?), the latter in allowing such a devastating run on the pound. Edited September 25, 2009 by garcon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 (edited) This thread is funny... Some posters come across as trying to disagree with corporal no matter what rather than discuss the points Judge the speech and not the speaker Edited September 25, 2009 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 No, but it ties in quite nicely with government policy on finance and financial regulation. The former being to allow the country's finances to get into such a terrifying state (are you listening Gordon?), the latter in allowing such a devastating run on the pound. In the lossiest sense it does... I really do not think 1976 can be referred to... Other than it was another mental Labour party Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Hmmm. No comprehensive banking collapse, per se - unless, that is, you include the Bank of England in 1976. Although that wasn't so much a banking collapse as an outright country collapse. God Bless the IMF, eh? What a frightening number of people don't seem to realise is that, last autumn, we were looking at not only a banking collapse, but a collapse of an entire system resting on the continued functioning of those banks. That's what makes the lack of scrutiny of what the bankers and other financiers were doing so foolish. A worrying number of people seem to think it's over, too, having no real appreciation of the fact that it's simply been masked. But at least it gives me another chance to quote Bob Marley. So here goes: 'You think it's the end, but it's just the beginning.' Anybody any good at backing vocals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 In the lossiest sense it does... I really do not think 1976 can be referred to... Other than it was another mental Labour party I suspect 1976 was one of the events at the forefront of Gordon Brown's mind in 1997 when he made his first policy announcement as Chancellor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 In the lossiest sense it does... I really do not think 1976 can be referred to... Other than it was another mental Labour party A persistent myth, however, is that the nation's finaces were put on a sound basis in the 1980s and 1990s, when what really happened was that we swapped an industrial economy for a McJob economy and made the City of London at the hub of the economy. That worked well, didn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 I thought your kind did believe the latter? Otherwise what's the point? Government may not have been able to stop the technological change that made possible the securitised debt options and other exotic financial innovations that caused the crash, but it wa the removal of regulations, and the accompanying culture of excessive bonuses, that fuelled the taking of foolish risks. No, or more specifically there are indeed many people who support the market process but who don’t understand it. There is no invisible hand, there is the appearance of one. What looks like a process with defined aims and outcomes is in fact the unplanned outcomes of billions of individual decisions all of which in turn reflect an infinite number of alternatives which were not preferred. A market is no more “guided” than, for example, a language is in it’s development and operation. No doubt either might be influenced by some individuals more than most but the outcomes are not foreseen or intended. It is for precisely these reasons that economic predictions are actually not difficult but impossible, and the same reason that planned economies are unable to meet needs and desires as effectively as free ones. Hope that clears that up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 This thread is funny... Some posters come across as trying to disagree with corporal no matter what rather than discuss the points Judge the speech and not the speaker Ominously Paltry only seems to get wheeled out in order to say 'tut' at me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Ominously Paltry only seems to get wheeled out in order to say 'tut' at me. Yup... It has been noted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 I suspect 1976 was one of the events at the forefront of Gordon Brown's mind in 1997 when he made his first policy announcement as Chancellor. I have no idea what goes on in his head to be frank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 (edited) What a frightening number of people don't seem to realise is that, last autumn, we were looking at not only a banking collapse, but a collapse of an entire system resting on the continued functioning of those banks. That's what makes the lack of scrutiny of what the bankers and other financiers were doing so foolish. A worrying number of people seem to think it's over, too, having no real appreciation of the fact that it's simply been masked. But at least it gives me another chance to quote Bob Marley. So here goes: 'You think it's the end, but it's just the beginning.' Anybody any good at backing vocals? The problem with the likes of Thatcher and Brown/Blair is they just didn't know when to reign it all back in... The horse had bolted and the door was still wide open... I give a some credit to John Major (the UK was recovering long before 97)... He put the horse back in the pen just for Brown/Blair to let it back out Edited September 25, 2009 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 No, or more specifically there are indeed many people who support the market process but who don’t understand it. There is no invisible hand, there is the appearance of one. What looks like a process with defined aims and outcomes is in fact the unplanned outcomes of billions of individual decisions all of which in turn reflect an infinite number of alternatives which were not preferred. A market is no more “guided” than, for example, a language is in it’s development and operation. No doubt either might be influenced by some individuals more than most but the outcomes are not foreseen or intended. It is for precisely these reasons that economic predictions are actually not difficult but impossible, and the same reason that planned economies are unable to meet needs and desires as effectively as free ones. Hope that clears that up. Not really. For a start, the notion of an entirely free market is a myth. State power created it, and state power is always in the background. Everywhere it exists. As we have just seen. What else have the various bailouts and stimulus packages across the world revealed other than the state propping up the market economy? Have a read of The Delusions of Global Capitalism by John Gray, if you get the chance. He explains all this better than I ever could. He used to be an adviser to Thatcher, too, and was at the heart of her team when all the neo-liberal-inspired dogma was adopted. And is still a conservative. Anyway, I'm off home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 What a frightening number of people don't seem to realise is that, last autumn, we were looking at not only a banking collapse, but a collapse of an entire system resting on the continued functioning of those banks. That's what makes the lack of scrutiny of what the bankers and other financiers were doing so foolish. A worrying number of people seem to think it's over, too, having no real appreciation of the fact that it's simply been masked. But at least it gives me another chance to quote Bob Marley. So here goes: 'You think it's the end, but it's just the beginning.' Anybody any good at backing vocals? If it wasn't so scary it would be hilarious how the lemmings lap up the dumbed down media coverage of it all. It ws plain for all to see how the real recession began to bite roughly 12 months after the banking crisis hit, and yet we're now expected to believe everything is rosy because the banks have managed to use their public money bailouts to make themselves some money (out of everyone else's misery I might add) and start paying themselves bonuses again. The recession was a year behind the banking crisis going in, and will be at least that far behind coming out. It is beyond me how anyone can be stupid enough to believe we're coming out of recession already when - whatever happens next May - the next 18 months will see upwards of a quarter of a million public sector redundancies, on top of thousands more in the private sector (my company being a typical example - roughly 2000 redundancies in the UK as a result of the "economic climate", starting in November). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 If it wasn't so scary it would be hilarious how the lemmings lap up the dumbed down media coverage of it all. It ws plain for all to see how the real recession began to bite roughly 12 months after the banking crisis hit, and yet we're now expected to believe everything is rosy because the banks have managed to use their public money bailouts to make themselves some money (out of everyone else's misery I might add) and start paying themselves bonuses again. The recession was a year behind the banking crisis going in, and will be at least that far behind coming out. It is beyond me how anyone can be stupid enough to believe we're coming out of recession already when - whatever happens next May - the next 18 months will see upwards of a quarter of a million public sector redundancies, on top of thousands more in the private sector (my company being a typical example - roughly 2000 redundancies in the UK as a result of the "economic climate", starting in November). Agreed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OminousPoultry Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Ominously Paltry only seems to get wheeled out in order to say 'tut' at me. except when we need to clear up some points about organisational goals that is. Anyway - back to the debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Not really. For a start, the notion of an entirely free market is a myth. State power created it, and state power is always in the background. Everywhere it exists. As we have just seen. What else have the various bailouts and stimulus packages across the world revealed other than the state propping up the market economy? Have a read of The Delusions of Global Capitalism by John Gray, if you get the chance. He explains all this better than I ever could. He used to be an adviser to Thatcher, too, and was at the heart of her team when all the neo-liberal-inspired dogma was adopted. And is still a conservative. Anyway, I'm off home. If Gray is a conservative this week he sure as hell won't be next one. He was the high priest of the communitarian school of political thought when I was actively studying. Anyway, I support, "capitalism," only in it's pure usage as in people investing money to make a profit, not the more popular use that covers any society with businesses allowed to make a profit regardless of how much the government is involved Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 If it wasn't so scary it would be hilarious how the lemmings lap up the dumbed down media coverage of it all. It ws plain for all to see how the real recession began to bite roughly 12 months after the banking crisis hit, and yet we're now expected to believe everything is rosy because the banks have managed to use their public money bailouts to make themselves some money (out of everyone else's misery I might add) and start paying themselves bonuses again. The recession was a year behind the banking crisis going in, and will be at least that far behind coming out. It is beyond me how anyone can be stupid enough to believe we're coming out of recession already when - whatever happens next May - the next 18 months will see upwards of a quarter of a million public sector redundancies, on top of thousands more in the private sector (my company being a typical example - roughly 2000 redundancies in the UK as a result of the "economic climate", starting in November). In all fairness we probably will be coming out of the recession at the end of the year. All that means though is that we will be out of negative growth. The problem then however is growth will remain low, the cost cutting will go on and jobs continue to go. 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.