![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Oct. 14th, 2008 09:30 amGordon seems to have stuck in his thumb and pulled out a plum.
Partial nationalisation.
Last night on Newsnight, I heard someone from the Treasury state that the Government was going to make money out of this at the expense of the shareholders, and this was wrong. What complete bollocks. The government needs to rescue the banks because of the decisions that the bankers have made. Being a small shareholder in a couple of UK banks I happen to know that we (the shareholders) have to rubber stamp the banks actions and appoint the directors. It's the shareholders ultimate responsibility if the directors fuck-up. The shareholders can replace the directors.
If the government had not stepped in we'd be in a much worse situation. Pensions and savings would have disappeared as the various banks went bust, and the shares would be worthless anyway.
Barclay's are trying to avoid any partial nationalisation. But as and when their asses are on the line they may find they're going to be unable to cut quite such a favourable deal with the elected directors of UK PLC. They may just find the £9 billion of private investment they seem to need....but they may not. But anyway, Barclay's banker's bonuses will be safe for this year. They must be pretty confident that the FSA will look kindly upon them in the long run. (As an aside, I don't own any Barclay's shares, but I do have an account with them.)
In the years since Thatcher, deregulation has been a political mantra spouted by the right. It became such a commonplace that even the Labour Party had to tug its collective forelock, genuflect to the market, and 'get with the programme'. Until two months ago the Tories were calling for less regulation in the banking and finance industries. To claim that this worldwide financial mess was Gordon's fault is disingenuous. It is however part of the general social acceptance of the Chicago School's economic theories, the extreme end of which has been accepted and promoted the world over by parties of the right.
The social reappraisal started last month.
Pragmatism, not ideology seems the sensible way forward. And regulating how our money is risked seems pragmatic given recent events. I wonder how the Camerons of this world would have gotten us even half-way out of this mess. They called the Northern Rock nationalisation (which was an early symptom of the financial crisis) a disaster for the UK taxpayer. Could the hidebound ideologically consistant Tories ever have intervened on such a scale? And if not, were there any other ways by which the electors' pensions and savings could have been rescued?
Of course, we're all going to pay for this in taxes, but it's not the government to blame....it's the fucking bankers and the ideological deregulators who forget about human nature (though those on the right often use the concept of human nature to justify other policies).
I await the inevitable neoclassical rebuttal.
Partial nationalisation.
Last night on Newsnight, I heard someone from the Treasury state that the Government was going to make money out of this at the expense of the shareholders, and this was wrong. What complete bollocks. The government needs to rescue the banks because of the decisions that the bankers have made. Being a small shareholder in a couple of UK banks I happen to know that we (the shareholders) have to rubber stamp the banks actions and appoint the directors. It's the shareholders ultimate responsibility if the directors fuck-up. The shareholders can replace the directors.
If the government had not stepped in we'd be in a much worse situation. Pensions and savings would have disappeared as the various banks went bust, and the shares would be worthless anyway.
Barclay's are trying to avoid any partial nationalisation. But as and when their asses are on the line they may find they're going to be unable to cut quite such a favourable deal with the elected directors of UK PLC. They may just find the £9 billion of private investment they seem to need....but they may not. But anyway, Barclay's banker's bonuses will be safe for this year. They must be pretty confident that the FSA will look kindly upon them in the long run. (As an aside, I don't own any Barclay's shares, but I do have an account with them.)
In the years since Thatcher, deregulation has been a political mantra spouted by the right. It became such a commonplace that even the Labour Party had to tug its collective forelock, genuflect to the market, and 'get with the programme'. Until two months ago the Tories were calling for less regulation in the banking and finance industries. To claim that this worldwide financial mess was Gordon's fault is disingenuous. It is however part of the general social acceptance of the Chicago School's economic theories, the extreme end of which has been accepted and promoted the world over by parties of the right.
The social reappraisal started last month.
Pragmatism, not ideology seems the sensible way forward. And regulating how our money is risked seems pragmatic given recent events. I wonder how the Camerons of this world would have gotten us even half-way out of this mess. They called the Northern Rock nationalisation (which was an early symptom of the financial crisis) a disaster for the UK taxpayer. Could the hidebound ideologically consistant Tories ever have intervened on such a scale? And if not, were there any other ways by which the electors' pensions and savings could have been rescued?
Of course, we're all going to pay for this in taxes, but it's not the government to blame....it's the fucking bankers and the ideological deregulators who forget about human nature (though those on the right often use the concept of human nature to justify other policies).
I await the inevitable neoclassical rebuttal.
