Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[Mikey10]

And the boom it all rode was set up by Thatcher.

If that’s true - and I’d dispute it - the 2008 crash was also set up by Thatcher by creating a banking system which was, to all ends and means, left to work in a completely unregulated way.

 

[Mikey10]

Did they all run for PM just so they could get offered a decent job to pull out of the race?

Yes.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Yes , we need to get Brexit over the line, any deal will do just to shut that mentalist up..

Don't know about the four College Green women, is it this lot?

Yeah. I walk past there a bit and they are real fruitcases. Kind of Hot Fuzz style Gloucestershire village fete committee, who'd see you 'accidentally stab yourself through the neck on their garden shears' if you dared say a bad word about Emperor Juncker

 

[scaramanga]

Did they all run for PM just so they could get offered a decent job to pull out of the race?

Probably, good point.

 

[scaramanga]

If that’s true - and I’d dispute it - the 2008 crash was also set up by Thatcher by creating a banking system which was, to all ends and means, left to work in a completely unregulated way.

I disagree.

Talk to anyone at a higher level in banking from that time and they'll all tell you that nothing like what happened would have got past the Governor and his eyebrow when we used a judgement-based system as we did under Thatcher. The problem with moving to a rules-based system, as was Brown's obsession, is that anyone not covered by the rules is considered legal. Whereas under Thatcher's system, the governor would have had it stopped early on.

https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/liberty-justice/the-governor-s-eyebrow

 

[scaramanga]

You believe him?

He's reiterated that promise already - looking good so far.

 

[scaramanga]

Her time were also for the most part a time for double digit interest rates, all set at that time by the treasury..

I recall business loans at a staggering 18% in the early 90s...Her corner shop upbringing helped to perpetuate the myth that she were for SME.

And those actions successfully brought the rampant inflation, caused by Labour and their union masters, under control.

 

[DTA]

He's reiterated that promise already - looking good so far.

Boris is going to say anything he wants and then deny it when it becomes inconvenient. It's the Boris way.

I think there is actually a good chance he will backtrack on Brexit... Which obviously I'm pleased about.

 

[scaramanga]

Boris is going to say anything he wants and then deny it when it becomes inconvenient. It's the Boris way.

I think there is actually a good chance he will backtrack on Brexit... Which obviously I'm pleased about.

Maybe, but it's awfully soon to be reiterating a promise he doesn't intend to keep.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Corbyn has strong ideas? He's been pushing back against remain for past few years because of his desire to nationalise.

Some one is driving Boris, I have no doubt about that, but his overriding impulse is Boris.

Not Corbyn ideas. Just those that he came accross when he was in his 20s.

I disagree.

Talk to anyone at a higher level in banking from that time and they'll all tell you that nothing like what happened would have got past the Governor and his eyebrow when we used a judgement-based system as we did under Thatcher. The problem with moving to a rules-based system, as was Brown's obsession, is that anyone not covered by the rules is considered legal. Whereas under Thatcher's system, the governor would have had it stopped early on.

https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/liberty-justice/the-governor-s-eyebrow

Was the global fiancial crisis controlled from the UK? Silly to split hairs on UK histroy when it affected most countries no??

 

[SpurMeUp]

Boris is going to say anything he wants and then deny it when it becomes inconvenient. It's the Boris way.

I think there is actually a good chance he will backtrack on Brexit... Which obviously I'm pleased about.

Basically the only thing Boris brings to the table is a bigger bluff. "We'll leave with no deal." May did that already don't forget. Boris' bid or gamble is that she didn't do it hard enough. But think about this for a moment...we can see this on an internet forum, commentators can see this, and fiancial markets can see this pretty obvious play by Borris. Why wouldn't the EU see it too?

If you're playing chicken, and one side is driving towards the other in a 500m kilo lorry, and the other is in a fiberglass sports car weighing 50m kilos, who can afford not to swerve?

Considering the above, was May right to show pragmatism, or Boris to think he can play chicken?

 

[Baleforce]

Basically the only thing Boris brings to the table is a bigger bluff. "We'll leave with no deal." May did that already don't forget. Boris' bid or gamble is that she didn't do it hard enough. But think about this for a moment...we can see this on an internet forum, commentators can see this, and fiancial markets can see this pretty obvious play by Borris. Why wouldn't the EU see it too?

If you're playing chicken, and one side is driving towards the other in a 500m kilo lorry, and the other is in a fiberglass sports car weighing 50m kilos, who can afford not to swerve?

Considering the above, was May right to show pragmatism, or Boris to think he can play chicken?

he's playing chicken, but with the commons rather than the EU

 

[r-u-s-x]

I disagree.

Talk to anyone at a higher level in banking from that time and they'll all tell you that nothing like what happened would have got past the Governor and his eyebrow when we used a judgement-based system as we did under Thatcher. The problem with moving to a rules-based system, as was Brown's obsession, is that anyone not covered by the rules is considered legal. Whereas under Thatcher's system, the governor would have had it stopped early on.

https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/liberty-justice/the-governor-s-eyebrow

higher level bankers at the time were insisting that governments should not really be regulating the markets at all. They were insisting that their was a new paradigm and CLO / MBS / CDS etc were a new / safe way to increase profit.

Under a judgement based system the same would have happened - what exactly do you think the governor would have stopped?

 

[Parklaner81]

higher level bankers at the time were insisting that governments should not really be regulating the markets at all. They were insisting that their was a new paradigm and CLO / MBS / CDS etc were a new / safe way to increase profit.

Under a judgement based system the same would have happened - what exactly do you think the governor would have stopped?

Not necessarily.

A judgement-based system would by definition be much more likely to think through the consequences of actions (and in particular the potential for the creation of massive systemic risk that occurred), rather than focussing on a 'does this satisfy the letter of the regulations and help us in the short-term' mindset.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Not necessarily.

A judgement-based system would by definition be much more likely to think through the consequences of actions (and in particular the potential for the creation of massive systemic risk that occurred), rather than focussing on a 'does this satisfy the letter of the regulations and help us in the short-term' mindset.

Again at the time there was no fear of systemic risk, all the major players (apart from very few fringe) were unaware of the risk, all the models were based on old data and the new financial instruments meant they were no longer valid. The governor would not be wiser than the market, especially if all other major financial centers were raking in the cash. The markets were king at the time, they really had the power and there were calls for less regulation, the mantra was Governments could not be more efficient than the market.

 

[Gutter Boy]

he's playing chicken, but with the commons rather than the EU

I agree.

I think something has already been cooked up between the Johnson camp and Europe. Maybe a 2-4 year transition period until a Canada arrangement succeeds it. So no backstop, but a no-cliff edge transition. Johnson's calling it GATT whatever, but it'll be economic standstill (but out of political institutions) until FTA.

But the obstacle will be getting the remainer Tories and northern/midland Labour MPs to nod it through, hence the no deal rhetoric.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Not necessarily.

A judgement-based system would by definition be much more likely to think through the consequences of actions (and in particular the potential for the creation of massive systemic risk that occurred), rather than focussing on a 'does this satisfy the letter of the regulations and help us in the short-term' mindset.

How would UK judgments police US mortgages and selling of this debt? The whole argument is spurious.

 

[r-u-s-x]

How would UK judgments police US mortgages and selling of this debt? The whole argument is spurious.

The vast majority of the "really clever people" in the top banking positions were not worried about the MBS/CLO/CDO/ABS due to past default rates and rating agencies, there were some but they were in the fringes. All that has come after is hindsight - there was no will political or from the markets for more / intrusive regulation but the opposite.

 

[Grays_1890]

I love Boris already

We leave with no deal unless EU negotiate

Your move EU have that

Mwahahahaha

 

[SpurMeUp]

I love Boris already

We leave with no deal unless EU negotiate

Your move EU have that

Mwahahahaha

What makes you think the EU will move? In the stakes of who loses most from no deal, it is quite obviously us. They lose too but we are just one of their trading partners. Germany for example still benifits from free trade with france, italy, etc etc as well as free trade deals via the EU with Canada, Japan etc. Why would they sacrifice the unity of the EU to maintain trade with our 50m consumers, knowing that we'd lose more and likely blink first?