G20 is iffy about G-SIFIs

G-SIFI

What a load of rubbish - It is just yet another mechanism for the indefensible keeping its hold on power. These failed economists need sacking - not being provided with yet another lump of jargon!

It will never happen Robert. You know it. We all know it. Why not just stop the banks doing the risky things in the first place?

I do like the idea of taking away the power of the credit rating agencies.

Why they still exist after their abject failure to get anything right in 2008 (and considering the terrible consequences of their ineptitude) completely escapes me. The fact that they are still there is the clearest possible sign that nothing has changed and nothing ever will.

RP Said - "Or to put it another way, capitalism failed - because those who owned the shares and subordinated debt in these banks, and were rewarded during the good years for the risks being run by these banks, did not pay the appropriate price when the risks went bad."

And the truth shall set you free.

#JFH

Do you sit waiting John? That's got to be the fourth or fifth time you've got in first.

If not and you're just a lucky dude, can you pick me some lottery numbers tomorrow please good Sir while you're on a lucky streak ;-)

Great. At last. Let's get on with it.

Break them up.

Just how do you break up a G-SIFI which has identities in several or many countries/ The reaction to the credit crunch was in fact to manipulate banks into greater conglomerations especially in the UK and Lloyds are well advanced in integrating HBOS etc. The thrust of the article appears to be that banks are inevitably too big to fail and international agreement is imperative to cut them down to size but it is difficult to see how an agreement can be reached (herding obese cats). UK has an advantage in respect of the public ownership of two large conglomerations and a sell off in the foreseeable future would be gross short termism.

There must be a strong case for global credit rating agency free of conflict of interest - perhaps hosted by the IMF?

If countries aren’t too big to fail, then "global systemically important financial institutions" aren’t too big to fail either.

There’s still too many promises to pay out there, that aren’t any good.
I reckon that ultimately something’s going to give, it may be financial institutions, or more likely the value of a currency (possibly ours).

But nothing’s too big to fail.

#4. NorthSeaHalibut wrote:

"Do you sit waiting John? That's got to be the fourth or fifth time you've got in first."

Good morning NSH!

Just luck - I'm waiting while huge emails download and just notice something that provokes a response which I give an outlet to - with I am afraid not as accurate as I would like, but quick, typing! I have also been contributing for what seems years. Robert Peston's and Stephanie Flanders's blogs provoke me into reacting.

I know why - it is that their World view is formulated to be overly supportive of the status quo and this status quo is the same status quo that so recently destroyed the UK and the global economy. [This is why the arch proponents of the status quo must go.] I do not think that they (RP and SF) do this deliberately it is just that the selection process which they are the result of, always and inevitably avoids iconoclasts and support the status quo. Occasionally I'll try humour, but having never 'yet' done stand up I am still an amateur.

We must escape the past to improve that lot of everyone and so it is necessary for those with different views to advocate their views - that is what I try to do.

What this suggest to me is that those bankers who threaten to take their ball away to another country and not going to be able to do that.

The advantage is that they now can't run away from the UK taxpayer to whom they owe everything into whose domestic economy they now should start making real investment that creates value for all of us here.

The disadvantage is that we still remain captive conscripts for their humungeous liabilities.

Time for fundamental banking reform!

Well I have no sympathy for the banks or the credit rating agencies. But yet again this is a great piece by Robert focussing on what really matters out of the G20.

My observations:

1. I hate the G-SIFI's. If it was up to me ayone that worked for a G-SIFI during the boom yeasr (say 1995-2007) should have any current assets over £1 million taxed at 50%. Unfortunately that is impossible. For the UK the significant thing is that we have so many G-SIFIs and that in the good times their tax contribution was what was spent (not as efficiently as I would have liked) to improve the NHS, education etc. I hate the bankers but it is not in our national interest to destroy them (I am happy to hear any other practical ideas - I just do not see them).

2. Seems to me that the Banks and the Government should be getting together to work out how to position the British G-SIFIs so that

- they reamin competitive in the new world

- they once again make signigficant tax contributions in this country

- British taxpayers are never forced to bail them out.

Not exactly a free market solution but I think we are past that stage.

That's why, when other G-SIFIs got into serious trouble after the Lehman debacle, none was permitted to go bust: RBS in the UK, Citigroup in the US, UBS in Switzerland, as only the most egregious examples among many, all were bailed out at huge expense by taxpayers.

Robert,

There is something seemingly odd about all this.

The raison d'etre for banks is to provide a service for the public by liquifying capital supplied in goods and services.

Thus, following this logic, if banks have insufficient liquidity (ie: great recession 2009) to meet capital requirements, then put simply, their business models are very flawed. This ought to be severely punishable, not unlike other sectors or industries - meaning - no bank is too big to fail. All this about new acronyms or paranoia-mongering is more of the same tosh flying for the past 30 odd years.

Which brings me to the point. One frankly I am uncomfortable with:

If the private sector can no longer ultimately honour their promises (ie: be trusted) with a public function (evident to the nth degree over the past two years), then, as right-leaning as I am, shouldn't the function of banking move back into the public sector?

Or put another way: how do we reset priorities in banking to account for public service first, profit second, and not the other way around?

8. At 10:02am on 12 Nov 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:
"#4. NorthSeaHalibut wrote:

"Do you sit waiting John? That's got to be the fourth or fifth time you've got in first."

Good morning NSH!

Just luck - I'm waiting while huge emails download and just notice something that provokes a response which I give an outlet to - with I am afraid not as accurate as I would like, but quick, typing! I have also been contributing for what seems years. Robert Peston's and Stephanie Flanders's blogs provoke me into reacting."

And I'm jolly glad they do, we need at least one voice of reason from Hendon.

JFH Wrote: "Just luck...."

Now about those lottery numbers..........

8. At 10:02am on 12 Nov 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:
#4. NorthSeaHalibut wrote:
"Do you sit waiting John? That's got to be the fourth or fifth time you've got in first."
We must escape the past to improve that lot of everyone and so it is necessary for those with different views to advocate their views - that is what I try to do.

I'm glad when the trolls don't get their spoilers in first.

John - Picking up on your point about the status quo, I agree. Auto-selection is taking place amongst the elite in the (dis)guise of *meritocracy*. This governs and explains the behaviour of politicians, economists, regulators, big business. For example, denial of the seriousness of the crisis, and attempts to blame it on the vulnerable to justify making them pay.

(My definition of vulnerable in this context is a wide one and includes for example those policemen who will lose their jobs.)

#10. At 10:29am on 12 Nov 2010, Cassandra wrote:
"Well I have no sympathy for the banks or the credit rating agencies. But yet again this is a great piece by Robert focussing on what really matters out of the G20........

........ I hate the bankers but it is not in our national interest to destroy them (I am happy to hear any other practical ideas - I just do not see them)."

Unruly mob wielding flaming torches and sharp farming implements, battering rams hastily fashioned from tree trunks, hot (cheap) oil, financial fortresses raised to the ground. That's how we dealt with monsters in the good old days, seems practical enough solution to me.

We should all refer to them as WMED(Weapons of Mass Economic Destruction)and not G-SIFIs.This would put things in perspective and leaders will have precedents to help them decide on the necessary course of action if need be!

10. At 10:29am on 12 Nov 2010, Cassandra wrote:

'I hate the bankers but it is not in our national interest to destroy them...'

They destroyed themselves and we saved them - whether we wanted to or not!


'- British taxpayers are never forced to bail them out.'

This ultimately means we need to shrink them or break them up. It means an end to 'too big to fail' before they become 'too big to save'.

The socialist in me would fully nationalise RBS and Lloyds. They are complete zombies anyway and will be coming back, cap in hand at credit crunch 2.

Although the anarchist in me would like to see the whole sorry industry fall apart!

The whole planet is going down the toilet anyway...

You can see those who are the real power players, having their position enshrined and then publically presented by the G20. At least people can now see who there masters are eh!

G-SIFI'S..the very latest in swimsuits..just dive in and get wet..with no need for supports of any kind!!!!!!

#9, Stanilic. No escape. Excellent point! Can't wait for Jacques' take on this.

#10, Cassandra. The banks parasitised the global economy, not just the UK. There is a cost associated with dismantling economic imperialism. Worse to come.

#11, Rowerdave1. They will be easier to manage after breakup.

#14, NorthSeaHalibut. ... "financial fortresses razed to the ground ... That's how we dealt with monsters in the good old days". It will be a test of the common sense of Dave, Nick and Guy of Gisborne to see how soon they step down in the face of civil disobedience, the dangers of which are to repeat the accident in Greece where three people died.

A wise uncle of mine Uncle Geff(Pollard) told me to ensure that I never invested more that 20% in anything; thus allowing for colapsing markets or prices. In todays world with leaders of companys prefessing they have no idea whats going on then this is still the most valuable bit of advise I have had ever had.

1. At 09:26am on 12 Nov 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:

Yes. From Robert's short description it seems like more tinkering at the edges without disturbing the source of the problem. I read this bit and laughed

"It requires regulators and supervisors from Beijing to Moscow to London to Washington being equally expert, and intrusive and robust in their dealings with the likes of Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and BNP Paribas.

It requires every major country in the world to harmonise special insolvency or resolutions procedures for banks - which will entail heroic attempts by parliaments in many countries to streamline new bankruptcy laws.

It requires governments and regulators in every major country in the world to legislate so that a massively higher proportion of the liabilities of these G-SIFIs can be converted into loss-absorbing equity in a crisis - and it requires investors to supply these potentially loss-absorbing loans and additional equity without massively increasing the funding costs for banks, which could raise the cost of borrowing for households and businesses."

Sounds like a massive new industry. Is this the new engine of economic growth? Let's call it general agreement for regulation of banking and global economics, or garbage for short.

If you want to trade globally and you are a G-SIFI as defined by the majority of the G-20 Then you are automatically registered with an approved international regulator whose rules you have to abide by.

The directors of G-SIFIs are held responsible for failure, with loss of assets (well if you want to play a high stakes game) should the financial institution collapse and lets invent some other fiat currency that can be printed for a so called bail-out which is swapped for all the assets of that institution - including the directors et al personal assets. This currency can only be used within the G-Sifi system and has to be converted by the rest of the G-Sifi group - long term - into accepted assets by compulsory purchase. A bit of peer group pressure so to speak.

Just a thought ....well barely I got up very early and probably need to go back to bed

The G-SIFIs,(G-SIFIs are "global systemically important financial institutions".)appear to have ability to operate outside normal laws, business regulations and natural sence of justice because goverments protected them this time.

However what happens if this happens again in the near furture? Will countries be able to bail them out a second time?

If the cuts that are currently being suggested are brought in and have a major impact on the individual person / country could more cuts be implement a second time to bail the banks out? Would goverments survive politically bailing out G-SIFIs again?

Logic dictates that there is a real change that even governments would not be able to underwrite the banks losses a second time!

I leave it to you to consider the implications of this scenario!

21. At 11:40am on 12 Nov 2010, Duxtungstu wrote:
Let's call it general agreement for regulation of banking and global economics, or garbage for short.

Classic!

Just because a large bank has been broken into smaller pieces does not mean the stability problem is solved. If all the little pieces go bust in response to a financial crisis, that's just the same mess as if the original large bank went bust.

24. At 11:54am on 12 Nov 2010, PacketRat wrote:

21. At 11:40am on 12 Nov 2010, Duxtungstu wrote:
Let's call it general agreement for regulation of banking and global economics, or garbage for short.

Classic!

Seconded!

Or to put it another way, capitalism failed - because those who owned the shares and subordinated debt in these banks, and were rewarded during the good years for the risks being run by these banks, did not pay the appropriate price when the risks went bad.

The affected shareholders actually suffered extensive losses. Whether they paid the "appropriate price" is a matter of opinion. Also, to say that "capitalism failed" as a result of the government's deliberate intervention is a little like saying that gravity has failed when you suspend a nail under an electromagnet.

As an RBS shareholder, I do not understand your point that the owners of the shares not pay the appropriate price.
My investment lost 95% of its value and i was left with a mere 5%. That sounds more than appropriate.

@18. At 11:29am on 12 Nov 2010, signoff wrote:
"G-SIFI'S..the very latest in swimsuits..just dive in and get wet..with no need for supports of any kind!!!!!!"
Can't guarantee your assets won't shrink though.

1. At 09:26am on 12 Nov 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:

"G-SIFI

What a load of rubbish - It is just yet another mechanism for the indefensible keeping its hold on power. These failed economists need sacking - not being provided with yet another lump of jargon! "

Hear hear - we should burn economists at the stake like the evil witches they are (and no, I'm not being sarcastic in the slightest)

"Now as luck would have it, the UK boasts more G-SIFIs relative to the size of the UK economy than any other G20 country."
Lord James of Blackheath wouldn't have anything to do with one of them would he? He was discussing something rather peculiar in the House of Lords a couple of weeks ago. Another Nigerian email scam apparently, none of the other Lords took much notice.

#23. At 11:53am on 12 Nov 2010, Bruce Tuxford wrote:
"The G-SIFIs,(G-SIFIs are "global systemically important financial institutions".)appear to have ability to operate outside normal laws, business regulations and natural sence of justice because goverments protected them this time.

However what happens if this happens again in the near furture? Will countries be able to bail them out a second time?

If the cuts that are currently being suggested are brought in and have a major impact on the individual person / country could more cuts be implement a second time to bail the banks out? Would goverments survive politically bailing out G-SIFIs again?

Logic dictates that there is a real change that even governments would not be able to underwrite the banks losses a second time!

I leave it to you to consider the implications of this scenario!"

My particular angle on the austerity being implemented by European governments is that it is in preparation for the next round of bailouts, its purely a race against time to save enough to pay the paymaster. As for public discontent at the inevitible further bailouts, will we hear about it, we didn't hear about the backhanders last time did we until Merv let it slip. Forget the deficits and market pressure, that's clearly all smoke and mirrors and has been disproved several times over, this is panic mode in lieu of Bailout II, it's coming to a high street near you, release date Summer 2011.

The US on the other hand will either print bailout money next time round or back off and let banks fail in the wake of foreclosuregate, they have much bigger problems to deal with after their bully boy tactics have failed at G20. Currency value agreement, yeah looks like it, hyperinflation here we come.

If they're so big they would cause significant disruption then it's high time these huge banks were broken up. Over the pond they lobbied for years to get Glass steigel abolished and hey presto within a few years here we go again with another crisis.

Matt Taibbi of RollingStone magazine shows how "Courts are Helping Banks Screw Over Homeowners" and is perhaps the end game of a long line of systemic housing sale, mortgage and securitization fraud at every level.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/232611?RS_show_page=0

"the foreclosure crisis is Too Big for Fraud. Think of the Bernie Madoff scam, only replicated tens of thousands of times over, infecting every corner of the financial universe. The underlying crime is so pervasive, we simply can't admit to it — and so we are working feverishly to rubber-stamp the problem away, in sordid little backrooms in cities like Jacksonville, behind doors that shouldn't be, but often are, closed."

So when the politicians, legal and banks are working together do you really think the banks will be downsized? How come the Americans are not out with the pitchforks, oh yes they are too busy watching dancing with stars to be concerned about being robbed.

Firstly nothing is too big to fail including G-SIFI banks in ordinary times but these were not ordinary times and one failure (Lehmans) nearly set off a chain reaction so governments acted not to support the banks per se but to protect savers.
The G-SIFI group are at times legalised gangsters that hold business & savers to ransom and at present due to Basel III they can hide behind these types of ruling to underpay savers and cut back on lending to SMEs etc whilst substantially re-building their balance sheets and smugly giving themselves inflated bonus payments. What gauls is they just dont get it they think they are better & wiser than the rest of the community amd they are not.

#25. At 12:00pm on 12 Nov 2010, goodthinkinggeorge wrote:
"Just because a large bank has been broken into smaller pieces does not mean the stability problem is solved. If all the little pieces go bust in response to a financial crisis, that's just the same mess as if the original large bank went bust."

Exactly what happened to a company I dealt with years ago. They devolved their operations to various smaller independent subsidiaries. A few years later the whole pile went bust because they were inter-linked structurally through their customer base despite their isolation of practices.

#27. At 12:13pm on 12 Nov 2010, Zanzare wrote:
"Or to put it another way, capitalism failed - because those who owned the shares and subordinated debt in these banks, and were rewarded during the good years for the risks being run by these banks, did not pay the appropriate price when the risks went bad.

The affected shareholders actually suffered extensive losses. Whether they paid the "appropriate price" is a matter of opinion. Also, to say that "capitalism failed" as a result of the government's deliberate intervention is a little like saying that gravity has failed when you suspend a nail under an electromagnet."

Power failure and hey presto, one grounded nail. You can't beat the prevailing forces in the end, and capitalism is failing actually it's failed already.

wheesht @ 28

I think the point is this - without government intervention RBS would have gone bust and you would have lost the entire value of your investment.

What makes people angry is that the government bailed out RBS using money that ultimately comes from taxpayers. As a direct result you can hang onto your investment until the price recovers and then, one day, even sell it at a profit.

That is a result that is entirely inconsistent with the basic tenets of the free market and the capitalist system. In my view people like you should perhaps be allowed to recover the value of your original investment but any "profit" on your investment should go to paying off the UK's debt.

The answer is simple.

Set up an international banking ratings agency to periodically assess each bank in the SIFI or G-SIFI category.

Impose a tax on profits in relation to their riskiness. They can go and do what they want but the "insurance" cost of being risky will be very high which will materially hit profits

The funds liberated would:-

1) help to repair government deficits now (less severe cuts)
2) Reduce governmental borrowing in the long term
3) be a "pre paid" saviour when the next crisis happens.
4) This "tax" should be large enough to incentivise targeting risk adjusted returns rather than high returns at any risk.

Legislation to contain them will fail for the same reason you can't tax the super rich because they will always have a tax accountant better that the government and will find all the loop holes. The banks will do the same. Accept it will happen again one day so better to prepare for it.

Jezza

25. At 12:00pm on 12 Nov 2010, goodthinkinggeorge wrote:

"Just because a large bank has been broken into smaller pieces does not mean the stability problem is solved. If all the little pieces go bust in response to a financial crisis, that's just the same mess as if the original large bank went bust."

That is an excellent and accurate point - sadly nobody in charge is clever enough to work that out.

This is what happens in 'reverse meritocracy' where the idiots float to the top - like something else I can think of...

14. At 10:58am on 12 Nov 2010, NorthSeaHalibut wrote:

"Unruly mob wielding flaming torches and sharp farming implements, battering rams hastily fashioned from tree trunks, hot (cheap) oil, financial fortresses raised to the ground. That's how we dealt with monsters in the good old days, seems practical enough solution to me."

Be careful now - you'll have all those 'outraged daily mail' bloggers screaming condemnation at the mere mention of violence (whilst looking the other way as our nation murders 'johnny foreigners' in the name of maintaining their unaffordable lifestyles)

"Too big to fail, too big to jail" remains a thorny issues years after the 2007 crises. Grand announcements on banking reforms turned out to be eyewash. Bankers will keep dragging their feet while they keep pocketing millions in bonuses. It is very sad that the Public is being held hostage while banks lobby to water down every reform measure brought before the legislature. "He who pays the piper calls the tune" is a saying we are all familiar with.
I can visibly see the social mood sour in the developed World and my diagnosis is that trouble lies ahead. The World order is in a state of flux and BRIC Economies are demanding a greater say in the way the World is run. Lower wages and living standards is inevitable in the developed World while the same rises rapidly in Asia and Latin America. As money is fungible the effects will be obvious - deflation in rich countries, inflation in Emerging Markets. Both can cause massive social upheaval. Getting ourselves a GUN today might turn out to be wise investment.

It seems to me that one major reason the huge banks can't fail is because they have so much money deposited by the average working person in the street.

So on that basis the solution is simple. A bank is either a retail bank or an investment bank. Forget this rubbish about Chinese Walls - the most notable thing about the original Chinese Wall was how spectacularly it failed. Let a retail bank take deposits from customers and make loans, and prevent retail banks from operating in more risky ventures. Let an investment bank do what it will, and let people invest in an investment bank knowing that if it goes down they could lose everything.

Above all else let it be widely known that if you trade huge positions with another bank and that bank goes down, you get to carry the can for any losses they can't pay. If that means all the investment banks go down like a chain of dominoes, so be it, if they are all that stupid. But at least if there are catastrophic losses along the line at least one bank will suffer the much lesser indignity of merely forfeiting some of its profit and will survive.

#28. At 12:15pm on 12 Nov 2010, U14684538 wrote:
"As an RBS shareholder, I do not understand your point that the owners of the shares not pay the appropriate price.
My investment lost 95% of its value and i was left with a mere 5%. That sounds more than appropriate."

As an RBS mortgage holder my ineterst rates went UP before coming down slightly (4.15% against a base rate of 0.5%) so I'm paying for it while you sit on it waiting to reap the rewards of me being stiffed - again. Still not for long, I'm out of the nmortage market soon, I'm not playing this sordid game any longer.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

It all sounds awfully complex and requiring a tremendous amount of co- operation and co ordination and the abstanation of national interests.

ITS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN

Split the retail banks from the "gambling banks" . Make it 110% clear only the retail banks will be supported by the government.

We can't afford another bail out EVER.

Nationalise all the banks and be done with it. Freeze interest rates at 2% across the board. And while you're about it seize the assets of all foreign-owned firms in the UK. And freeze rents too. Freeze Trident. Freeze everything. Stop foreign wars. Empty the prisons. Heck - re-occupy the Rhineland!!

GC

11. At 10:39am on 12 Nov 2010, rowerdave1 wrote:

"If the private sector can no longer ultimately honour their promises (ie: be trusted) with a public function (evident to the nth degree over the past two years), then, as right-leaning as I am, shouldn't the function of banking move back into the public sector?

Or put another way: how do we reset priorities in banking to account for public service first, profit second, and not the other way around?"

Free thinking logic at it's best - I agree with this analysis. The banks were tasked with doing a job. The reward for performing that function was 'profit' - the responsibility was stability.

They have failed - in so many ways. They took more than their share of reward and failed in their task of responsibility.

How many people out there re-employ the same person who just messed up fitting your kitchen ?

....so why are we allowing the Government to do this with the banks?

We voted - they took power and then changed their direction.
We protested (peacefully) and they used the law to remove us - for being 'unsightly'
We are now taking the next step - and if this Government thinks we're going to flinch - it has seriously underestimated us.

The actions of 2000 students (and they were students) on Wednesday has sent a shockwave around the world. From the time the Greeks first draped that banner from the Acropolis - we needed to send our acknowledgement of that message.

The french did it in style, the spanish confirmed - now we have commited also.

PEOPLES OF EUROPE RISE UP.

Don't be afraid - be together. The revolution is coming and there's nothing that can be done to stop it.

23. At 11:53am on 12 Nov 2010, Bruce Tuxford

Another excellent post - it seems that the wider ranging view is seeing through the nonsense we're being fed.

It's true, no-one can afford another bailout - which is why the fraudclosure and Irish default worries are so important. Why has this not been widely reported? Do they think hiding it from us wil change anything?

A man on question time (a few weeks ago) asked about the suggestion there would be another bank bailout in 2011 - his question went unanswered - why?

...because they are in denial.

"24. At 11:54am on 12 Nov 2010, PacketRat wrote:

21. At 11:40am on 12 Nov 2010, Duxtungstu wrote:
Let's call it general agreement for regulation of banking and global economics, or garbage for short.

Classic!"

That is brilliant.

41. At 12:56pm on 12 Nov 2010, goldchest wrote
As money is fungible
I've learnt a new word, are my services are fungible?
1. Law Returnable or negotiable in kind or by substitution, as a quantity of grain for an equal amount of the same kind of grain.
2. Interchangeable.
(Law) (often plural) moveable perishable goods of a sort that may be estimated by number or weight, such as grain, wine, etc.
In my case the service provider is perishable and often exchanges services for wine.....better than a gun goldchest

4. At 09:31am on 12 Nov 2010, NorthSeaHalibut

I got the RSS feed and link for this at 9.00 so if you have a burning desire to beat him to it that might be the best approach :-)

G-SIFIs

More nonsense ... no BS actually!

Was Northern Rock a G-Spivvy?

The G20 have gone the wrong way on this ... should have gone for 'national sustainability indexation' with special reporting criteria on banking?

G-Spivvy my ****

44. At 1:01pm on 12 Nov 2010, writingsonthewall

Did you mean 'The Red Pill'? I kind of hope you did!

I use that system (a purple scale) to informaly rate the books that I read.

I disagree that Capitalism has failed. Unfortunately, Capitalism has been hijacked by the banks so there are no longer free markets..and it is 'Free Market Capitalism' that has failed.

Alan Greenspan made a speech this week at Jekyll Island where the Fed and other financial leaders are meeting. He said the banking crisis was caused because the markets failed, and he admitted they failed because of the illegal and criminal practices in the system.

Still yet to see a single arrest I and doubt there ever will be. The banks have gotten so big and so rich they have the politicians in their pockets and spend millions lobbying so all legislation is in their favour.

Too big to fail is becoming Too big to be Prosecuted. The beast has been let loose and we will never get it back in the cage.

There is lots of speculation on where the world economy is heading and most of it is bad. I think we passed the tipping point and only QE has staved off the inevitable collapse.

Good luck everyone.

47. At 1:11pm on 12 Nov 2010, writingsonthewall wrote:The actions of 2000 students (and they were students) on Wednesday has sent a shockwave around the world

Was it not between 20-50,000 protesting whilst some of the little scamps did a little "DIY SOS" at Millbank, A little to much "builders finish" for my tastes.

53. At 1:23pm on 12 Nov 2010, Squarepeg wrote:

"44. At 1:01pm on 12 Nov 2010, writingsonthewall

Did you mean 'The Red Pill'? I kind of hope you did!"

Crikey - you're right, what was I thinking?

"I use that system (a purple scale) to informaly rate the books that I read. "

Blue is bad and red is good?

54. At 1:23pm on 12 Nov 2010, stennylfc wrote:

"I disagree that Capitalism has failed."

If capitalism's goal was to ensure that the wealth of nations are held by a select few and that as a result the rest of the people (and the planet) will suffer - then I guess it hasn't failed at all.

However this isn't what the people thought it was going to do - they were told about 'freedom' and 'choice' being the gains from this system.

How many years has it taken, for the regulators to "wake up" to this sorry state of affairs?

How many years will they take before the enforce any new regulation?

It will never happen - Barclays will bleat that they are too important, the others will whinge and moan in mcuh the same way.

Why is any bank or institution 'too important'?

There was 'life' in the marketplace before these institutions, and will be long after they have gone.

As for the Credit Ratings Agencies, they were always a bit of a joke and anyone who relied on them too seriously, deserved to have their 'wallets burnt'!

" 44. At 1:01pm on 12 Nov 2010, writingsonthewall wrote:
3. At 09:28am on 12 Nov 2010, NorthSeaHalibut wrote:
"RP Said - "Or to put it another way, capitalism failed - because those who owned the shares and subordinated debt in these banks, and were rewarded during the good years for the risks being run by these banks, did not pay the appropriate price when the risks went bad.""
HURRAH FOR ROBERT - FOR HE HAS "TAKEN THE BLUE PILL" AND JOINED US.
One by one they cross the divide - more and more join the cause each day.
2,637 people have joined the cause - and this number increases daily.
https://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/We-need-unity-defend-the-Millbank-protestors/128397300550227
First they attacked the workers
Then they attacked the students
Next they attack the benefit claimants
They create the unity we need - they are masters of their own downfall.
"
Why is there some much support for a bunch of students demanding someboby else should pay for them!
If they want education then maybe they should pay for it themselves, maybe if over the age of 21, you should pay for your own education
If you take a gap year (an elitist action) you should pay for your last year yourself. (if you fail your A levels, the cost and lesson of failure is the expense)
Why aren't all Degree courses on-line and we could do away with the physical cost of universities (since their existence was historically due to their extensive paper libraries and therefore concentration of research materials)
You have to wonder where all this SELFISHNESS comes from?

The monetary system and the banking system that implements it is no longer fit for purpose. We have lost sight of the fact that it is an artificial construct of our own making, which has a massive flaw that allows the debt to grow faster than the money supply, and eventually hits a critical level. The money is not real, its just numbers on computer screens. The governments just want to tinker with it. There is no chance of the worlds governments universally agreeing a solution. The goose that laid the golden egg is now laying rotten eggs. They hope that by changing the feed it will start laying golden ones again. It wont work, the goose is passed its use by date and needs replacing. Radical change is required, monetary reform is a serious candidate, and lets face it, it cant be any worse. The trouble is governments don’t do radical, they don’t wish to upset the vested interests, but they fail to see the bigger picture. Money is a monumental nothing. If we zeroed the computers tomorrow, the sun would still come up, the world would turn, the crops would grow etc etc. Why should this artificial system dictate everything that happens in our world. Its utter madness. If aliens dropped onto our planet tomorrow they would think we were daft.

28. At 12:15pm on 12 Nov 2010, U14684538 wrote:
As an RBS shareholder, I do not understand your point that the owners of the shares not pay the appropriate price.
My investment lost 95% of its value and i was left with a mere 5%. That sounds more than appropriate.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

No offence, but who cares whether it went down by 95%? You are a shareholder, you agree to the endure the risks and the rewards, not the taxpayer. You won't find any sympathy here.

55. At 1:36pm on 12 Nov 2010, Dillers wrote:

"Was it not between 20-50,000 protesting whilst some of the little scamps did a little "DIY SOS" at Millbank, A little to much "builders finish" for my tastes."

Unfortunately the Government don't fear 50,000 peaceful protesters - this was proven when a million people came onto the streets in 2003 for the largest peaceful demonstration ever - and yet it made no difference to the policy of taking us to war without a mandate.

...however the poll tax demonstrations did change policy - and we need to recognise why.
To defeat the beast you must attack it's weakpoint - the media wouldn't have hardly mentioned the events on Wednesday if Millbank hadn't of been trashed.

It sends a message - a clear one - you damage our futures and we'll damage your present.

...on the brightside - the suggested 'millions' it will cost to repair the damage will do wonders for the collapsed building sector - maybe the students have started to revitalise the economy.

59. At 1:52pm on 12 Nov 2010, ThisWorld wrote:

"Why is there some much support for a bunch of students demanding someboby else should pay for them!"

....because some of us recognise the benefits we have had in the past and can't see why they should be removed from future generations in order to protect a few wealthy bankers. I did't even go to university and I don't have children, but I don't begrudge the opportunity of free education - otherwise we end up with a load of thick people - which is no good to anybody.

"If they want education then maybe they should pay for it themselves, maybe if over the age of 21, you should pay for your own education"

Most people already do - grants have long gone - clearly you aren't too well researched on this. The cost of tuition fees is not accounting for the value to society educated people have. They're paying too much.

"If you take a gap year (an elitist action) you should pay for your last year yourself. (if you fail your A levels, the cost and lesson of failure is the expense)"

...which I believe it already is (although not the gap year) - these are specifics though, the problem is with tuition fees.

"Why aren't all Degree courses on-line and we could do away with the physical cost of universities (since their existence was historically due to their extensive paper libraries and therefore concentration of research materials)"

...errr because you can't learn and appreciate everything from a computer screen! Is this is box ticking examination exercise we're discussing here or an education?

"You have to wonder where all this SELFISHNESS comes from?"

You must be referring to the selfishness of this generation expecting the next generation to pay for their mistakes. That is the only selfishness on show in this matter.

You just need to ask yourself - do you want an educated and competitive workforce - or a bunch of ignoramuses who can only "fix bolt A to nut B".

..unless you run a bolt factory - you should be supporting the former.

#47. writingsonthewall wrote:

The actions of 2000 students (and they were students) on Wednesday has sent a shockwave around the world...

The president of the National Union of Students disagrees with you, WOTW. Writing in the Guardian, Aaron Porter says:

Not on our side were the very small minority of violent protesters – estimated at 200 – who sought to hijack our organised success for their own agendas. The organisers of this splinter action are not known to us but we suspect they are not even students. I make no apology for condemning the mindless violence of a few that tried to undermine the case of a great many... That violence by a tiny minority sought to detract from our powerful collective message and let students down. We will never defend those who took actions that put innocent people's lives at risk. Indeed, I notice that none of those who unleashed violence on innocent people have been willing to comment in public. They simply cannot defend the indefensible.

So it looks as though you are part of a very small minority, WOTW, both in your assertion that the rioters were students and also in your defence of the violence.

Furthermore, I would hardly agree that this violence sent "shockwaves" around the world. It barely warranted a mention in either the press or on TV in most countries.

Whatever this guy will say is utter rubbish ^^^

Can I suggest that "writingsonthewall" goes to more 4 catch up website and looks ar "Britains trillion pound horror story" which was on channel 4 last night..
This should be compulsary viewing for all politicians too.

56. At 1:42pm on 12 Nov 2010, writingsonthewall
'Blue is bad and red is good?'

Sometimes that depends on who wrote it and why! More like subversive (to the norm) vs conformist than any statement of relative quality or subjective ethics.

'The shock doctrine' would be towards the red end, Hayek towards the blue (though having re-read 'Road To Serfdom' recently I think his viewpoint is often abused).

Sometimes they change shade as they go along - sometimes I do.

60. At 1:56pm on 12 Nov 2010, Averagejoe wrote:

"If aliens dropped onto our planet tomorrow they would think we were daft."

I think they would exterminate us all in order to 'stop the disease spreading' - and in some ways they would be absolutely right.

I did suggest a solution to the crisis would be for everyone to take a holiday for the next 5 - 10 years. We can't grow (economically) anyway so is there any point us all being at work pretending to be productive in a world where everything is deleveraging and the fake wealth is retracted faster than we can produce it?

"60. At 1:56pm on 12 Nov 2010, Averagejoe wrote:"
You haven't really thought it through

59. At 1:52pm on 12 Nov 2010, ThisWorld wrote:

'Why is there some much support for a bunch of students demanding someboby else should pay for them'


I believe taxpayers should pick up the tab.

Taxpayers pay for the NHS, to hire doctors and nurses, and schools to hire teachers etc, but you think they should refuse to pay for any of their training?

Who pays for the training of the police or fire brigade?





'Why aren't all Degree courses on-line and we could do away with the physical cost of universities (since their existence was historically due to their extensive paper libraries and therefore concentration of research materials)'


You obviously never went to university and have no idea what a university is or does.

Teaching is only part of it. Some universities are nearly 1000 years old.

And you can NOT learn engineering, science or medicine on-line!

Let's get a couple of things straight about higher education - even though it is off-topic:

University was free for all in the UK, but only the top academics went there - based, generally, on A-level results.
Social engineers aka some politcal parties thought this to be elitist and so they set targets ro make as many people as possible go to university
Social engineers/politicians wanted many to go to university as it keeps youth unemployment levels down
With a vast increase in the number of students and courses. the social engineers/politicians realised that they did not have enough money to pay for all of this and so, very late 90s/early 00s, tuition fees were introduced

Back on topic, however, G-SIFIs are not the problem. The problem is individual leaders wanting to make sure that nothing fails on their watch, but do not give two hoots about what happens on their successor's.
Governments' interference in the marketplace constantly distorts and destroys

64. At 2:07pm on 12 Nov 2010, rbs_temp wrote:

"The president of the National Union of Students disagrees with you, WOTW. Writing in the Guardian, Aaron Porter says:

Not on our side were the very small minority of violent protesters – estimated at 200 – who sought to hijack our organised success for their own agendas. The organisers of this splinter action are not known to us but we suspect they are not even students. I make no apology for condemning the mindless violence of a few that tried to undermine the case of a great many... That violence by a tiny minority sought to detract from our powerful collective message and let students down. We will never defend those who took actions that put innocent people's lives at risk. Indeed, I notice that none of those who unleashed violence on innocent people have been willing to comment in public. They simply cannot defend the indefensible."

So? - who is Aaron Porter? - he no longer represents students - his days are numbered following his betrayal of the people he supposedly represents. This is no more revealing than you quoting my MP and proposing it represents the views of my community! (which it doesn't as more than 50% of them didn't vote for her)
Aaron is more interested in media savvyness than actually being a leader - rule number "Always 'condone' violence as it makes you popular with the fearful people" - unfortunately he is supposed to represent students and not go for a career in politics.

"So it looks as though you are part of a very small minority, WOTW, both in your assertion that the rioters were students and also in your defence of the violence."

...what according to Aaron Porter? - don't make me laugh. The majority of people have violent tendencies - why else do you think there are so many people in Britain locked up or smashing each others faces in on a friday or saturday night?
As for them being students - well we shall see when (and if) they reach court. I shall savour the moment when I rub your face in it yet again. Unlike you I was there - I saw who was being carted away in the vans - they were not much more than school kids....

....but you keep reassuring yourself they were all 'nasty violent people' - because you're not convincing anyone else.

"Furthermore, I would hardly agree that this violence sent "shockwaves" around the world. It barely warranted a mention in either the press or on TV in most countries."

Really?

Well it made the New York times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/world/europe/11london.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=millbank&st=cse

You keep telling yourself it's just a minority - eventually you'll run out of people who will sympathise with you.

I fear for you - if you get this upset about this minor fracar - you wait to see what is coming down the road.

GIVE THEM NOTHING - BUT TAKE FROM THEM EVERYTHING!

Now scurry off and count your unearned wealth.

60. At 1:56pm on 12 Nov 2010, Averagejoe wrote:

"If aliens dropped onto our planet tomorrow they would think we were daft."

I notice that we are now looking for volunteers for a one way mission to Mars.

How long before someone there opened a bank?

Or claimed land ownership on a 5 billion year old rock?

Would we let them?

66. At 2:09pm on 12 Nov 2010, finance wrote:

"Can I suggest that "writingsonthewall" goes to more 4 catch up website and looks ar "Britains trillion pound horror story" which was on channel 4 last night..
This should be compulsary viewing for all politicians too. "

Don't need to - I know that the debt wouldn't be a problem if we hadn't handed over the sovereignty of our currency to the banks. It's just scaremongering from the austerity mob.

...now repeat after me - "austerity is good for me, austerity is good for me, austerity is good for me"

(I know this because the moment City Am recommended it as a worthwhile watch - it had to be capitalist propoganda)

However in the interests of balance I shall make myself watch it this weekend - unlike the raging Capitalists I am happy to watch both sides of the argument and come to a commen sense conclusion.

# 64. At 2:07pm on 12 Nov 2010, rbs_temp wrote:

"Furthermore, I would hardly agree that this violence sent "shockwaves" around the world. It barely warranted a mention in either the press or on TV in most countries."

How could you possible know that is true?

69. At 2:11pm on 12 Nov 2010, ThisWorld wrote:

"60. At 1:56pm on 12 Nov 2010, Averagejoe wrote:"
You haven't really thought it through

...and you don't seem to think at all! - you're own selfishness is telling you that we should restrict the education of the next generation - in order to bail out our mistakes - and you can't see why this is the dumbest idea since Ireland invited John DeLorean to start a car business!

I have read this blog for some time and every time there are at least a few responses blaming “bankers” for everything bad that’s happened in the economy over the last few years. I actually am a banker working in one of the large American investment banks in London. Blaming people like me is complete nonsense. 1. We underwrite profitable businesses debt and have a diversified balance sheet (the essence of banking) and nothing went wrong over the last couple of years. 2 We’re not a public service at all. We raise money for businesses from investors and maximise profit for ourselves as a PRIVATE company. 3. All the money we make is in fees and is attached to no risk whatsoever. Stop naming and blaming “bankers” and try to think of more logical and structured arguments!

65. At 2:08pm on 12 Nov 2010, RiskAnalyst wrote:

"Whatever this guy will say is utter rubbish ^^^"

Oh so you've noticed it too? - I thought it was just me.....

On the brightside, the more he writes - the more secure I feel in my ideology - because his doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny and the other bloggers can see that - and I've noticed the more wrong he becomes the more personal he gets.

...I do hate sore losers.

45. At 1:02pm on 12 Nov 2010, hughesz wrote:

"It all sounds awfully complex and requiring a tremendous amount of co- operation and co ordination and the abstanation of national interests.

ITS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN"

it is interesting to note - even to the most avid fan of Capitalism, that despite the banks failing taking us to the brink of Economic destruction - there are very few laws actually being created to prevent this happening again.

If this was an equivalent terror threat - say a nuclear bomb in a birthday cake seconds from going off - then I'm sure there would be a ban on all cakes, a curfew and huge changes to out civil rights relating to how these cakes came into the country (locking up people without charge, or tagging them for example)

Only the hardest Capitalist or the biggest hypocrite can't see this as being very, very odd.

it's fascism folks - you don't want to accept it - well nor do I, but it's the truth - a merger of corporation and state - lead by the banks and the coalition (a process started by previous governments)

70. At 2:28pm on 12 Nov 2010, newblogger wrote:

"And you can NOT learn engineering, science or medicine on-line!"

I'd like to see that - the left ventrical goes over the right ventrical and then carefully re-insert the SYSTEM ERROR an error has occured and the system needs to be rebooted - please contact Microsoft support.

...or even better, you're just on the last question of the exam and a builder in the road digs through the ADSL line!

Clearly university embellishes people with a lot more than just academic knowledge if that guy is anything to go by!

Robert,

While we are all saving like crazies for the unemployment we are facing (in the hope that we don't get trapped into the IDS Clearances) saving like crazies for pensions (because we are always being told we don't save for pensions enough) and saving like crazies for another, cash pension rescue fund (because let's face it, we all know that pension the pension fund on the stock market will be plundered by the employer/spiv/government, whoever) and saving like crazies for increased electicity/gas/transport/food/life and saving like crazies to help out the younger relatives with massively inflated education costs, have any of these muppets, and I mean muppets realised that we don't have the money, the will or the 'who gives (let's be polite) buckets of manure, they can place that in their own investment portfolios, 'cos I'm not a mug' to be willing to take on:

which could raise the cost of borrowing for households and businesses ?


Or do they think they will force us by subjecting what is left of the middle class to those nice toys the G20 like so much - you know, big sound cannons, pepper spray, batons etc to beat the money out of us? I'll take all three at the same time rather than lift a finger to help out those suffering from ideology so delusional it is no more constructive and less beneficial to the global population than building an altar from which I can pray to the God Thor?

more student fun coming your way soon!


https://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/nov/11/students-protests-national-24-november

As has been mentioned a few times above breaking up the banks into retail, private and investment entities won't necessarily help - an investment bank needs funds so it borrows from the retail bank. The investment bank goes to maggots and brings the retail bank down with it. And here we go again.

To make it work you would have to totally ring fence the operations so they had no cross funding/risk. That isn't going to happen.

On a more general point I think we are swimming around in an economic cesspit and while our leaders are trying to empty the pit its actually making it harder to get out.

My firm has been very quiet this week while all the suits are in the Far East. A barometer of what's happening out there betw the High St and the Industrial estate?

You bet: we don't sell life's essentials.

All our clients all over the world (80% export based till a year ago) are running out of money.

Let me see: Should I open a supermarket? Open a bank? Breed shire horses? Grow potatoes? If only someone would tell us what to do.

Any other winning diversification ideas?

GC

69. At 2:11pm on 12 Nov 2010, ThisWorld wrote:
You haven't really thought it through

Ok, ThisWorld, it goes like this:

Get born, get laid, raise a sprog, die.

While we're around, let's try and keep the place nice - no potholes in the roads, no pre ordained debt servitude for the sprogs. That's all.

A blinkered article Robert; Why just the banks? How about BP or Unilever - and there are many more.
I remember a top accounting firm saying last year that it would take 3 months to get to grips with HSBC accounts and even then they wouldn't understand it all.
International specialist co-operation? Don't make me laff - a lot of em don't even talk English.
The risk element should be split off from the main operation of the banks and the risk and any rewards go to the shareholders. What you do with industrial companies is something else. Perhaps they all start to pay proper interest rates on borrowing for risky investment. In itself that often makes the cost outweigh the potential benefit.

Imust say I envy how the students got organised - students union and mobile phones I guess.

I wish the silent majority could do that. That would really be a thing. What would we ask of our new Guvt of National Unity in the Rebulicj of Westminster? Would we even know what to ask for? (Given that everything is going nicely to plan at G20 et alia)

GC

" 63. At 2:06pm on 12 Nov 2010, writingsonthewall wrote:
59. At 1:52pm on 12 Nov 2010, ThisWorld wrote:
"Why is there some much support for a bunch of students demanding someboby else should pay for them!"
....because some of us recognise the benefits we have had in the past and can't see why they should be removed from future generations in order to protect a few wealthy bankers. I did't even go to university and I don't have children, but I don't begrudge the opportunity of free education - otherwise we end up with a load of thick people - which is no good to anybody.
"If they want education then maybe they should pay for it themselves, maybe if over the age of 21, you should pay for your own education"
Most people already do - grants have long gone - clearly you aren't too well researched on this. The cost of tuition fees is not accounting for the value to society educated people have. They're paying too much.
"If you take a gap year (an elitist action) you should pay for your last year yourself. (if you fail your A levels, the cost and lesson of failure is the expense)"
...which I believe it already is (although not the gap year) - these are specifics though, the problem is with tuition fees.
"Why aren't all Degree courses on-line and we could do away with the physical cost of universities (since their existence was historically due to their extensive paper libraries and therefore concentration of research materials)"
...errr because you can't learn and appreciate everything from a computer screen! Is this is box ticking examination exercise we're discussing here or an education?
"You have to wonder where all this SELFISHNESS comes from?"
You must be referring to the selfishness of this generation expecting the next generation to pay for their mistakes. That is the only selfishness on show in this matter.
You just need to ask yourself - do you want an educated and competitive workforce - or a bunch of ignoramuses who can only "fix bolt A to nut B".
..unless you run a bolt factory - you should be supporting the former.
"
NO I didn't go to University either, but i did manage to leave school and have never considered it appropriate that some people believe that regardless of the impact on others, free education (or partly paid education since the labour government started charging), is their right and others just have to pay (selfish). So why not limit the age at which Free education can be claimed (like child allowance or pensions both accepted as age ranged)
Obviously no-body wants an uneducated workforce, but neither do we want a population of eternal students producing nothing. This world of Rights without responsibilites only exists in a very few western nations and isn't doing the fabric of our lives any good, most nations see an education as an education to do something. far to many of our 'Students are doing rubbish courses of limited or no value to others (to the people who are paying) so why not test the resolve of the student and the value of the course by apply a charge to it

And on-line is the better place to pick information that sitting at the back of a lecture hall "because you can't learn and appreciate everything from a computer screen!" we actually do, most of us do everything in our working lives from computer screens including attending live and recorded lectures, demonstrations and talking with people from the other side of the world there's very little you can't do in the form of information exchange and conversation.
And doing this would benefit many who can't take time out to do full time education, and also the local communities of full time students, rather than concentrating the Education spend in a relatively small number of locations (bit like the OPEN University but with lots of different names) It would also allow students to courses offered by the best universities with out the constaint of phyisical PLACES

64. At 2:07pm on 12 Nov 2010, rbs_temp wrote:

Furthermore, I would hardly agree that this violence sent "shockwaves" around the world. It barely warranted a mention in either the press or on TV in most countries.

But what is news?

The disturbing effects of depleted Uranium are barely mentioned in the news.
The devastating injuries to soldiers are barely mentioned on the news.
The misrepresentation of Hezbollah and the conflict in Lebanon is rarely mentioned in the news. And then there is the Glasgow study on the failure of the news to inform us of history, and the culpability involved in Israel/Palestine genocide and apartheid (not read that or Jimmy Carter's excellent book?)
The alterntives (like taxing the rich a one-off tax) to pay for the nightmare they created is rarely mentioned in the news.
The real misery of unemployment is rarely mentioned in the news.
The abject poverty and hunger, the lack of water, sanitation around the world is rarely mentioned in the news.
The use of 'Aid' to poor countries not for infrastructure, education and health but for guns and bombs and bullets and military aircraft is rarely mentioned in the news. The mass slaughter in Congo DRC, the mass rapes and torture are rarely mentioned in the news.
The Argentine success story, the nightmares in El Salvador, Guatemala, the attempted coups in Venezuela, the kidnapping of an elected Prime Minister in Haiti, the plight of the Chagooans are rarely mentioned in the news.
The alleged crimes of people like Negraponte, Kissinger etc are rarely mentioned in the news.
The news rarely reports the thousands of protests in Chinese factories.
Or even something as simple as homeopathy being a load of old water and nothing else beng touted by snake oil salesmen to desperate, poorly educated people, and that no, it will not cure your illness (unless you are a tad dehydrated, that is) is rarely mentioned in the news.
Shall we assume that because the news ignores all of these devasting horrors, that they are irrelevant or simply don't happen?


Hope not. I really hope not.

69. At 2:11pm on 12 Nov 2010, ThisWorld wrote:
"60. At 1:56pm on 12 Nov 2010, Averagejoe wrote:"
You haven't really thought it through

Ah Mr Bold. No explanation, I see. I think you will find I've thought it through and that I have been thinking it through for a considerable amount of time which I'm sure many other bloggers will be able to confirm on my behalf. Your comments on the other hand display little in the way of thinking through, other than what you read in the daily mail. Pot, kettle, black. I will leave to the mercy of he who is called writingsonthewall, because quite frankly you are not worth the effort of 'trying to convince'.

# 77. At 2:49pm on 12 Nov 2010, ct218 wrote:
"I have read this blog for some time and every time there are at least a few responses blaming “bankers” for everything bad that’s happened in the economy over the last few years. I actually am a banker working in one of the large American investment banks in London. Blaming people like me is complete nonsense. 1. We underwrite profitable businesses debt and have a diversified balance sheet (the essence of banking) and nothing went wrong over the last couple of years. 2 We’re not a public service at all. We raise money for businesses from investors and maximise profit for ourselves as a PRIVATE company. 3. All the money we make is in fees and is attached to no risk whatsoever. Stop naming and blaming “bankers” and try to think of more logical and structured arguments!"

And at that the Prosecution rests M'Laud.

• 66. At 2:09pm on 12 Nov 2010, finance wrote:
Can I suggest that "writingsonthewall" goes to more 4 catch up website and looks ar "Britains trillion pound horror story" which was on channel 4 last night..
This should be compulsary viewing for all politicians too.
……………
I watched 5 minutes. It seems to be a propaganda broadcast for the tory party. eg Look at the state of the north east of England. It was all nationalised in the 40s and then went to pot, and regulation was the cause adding too much burden to free market businesses etc etc etc. Perhaps I should have given it more time, maybe there was a section on outsourcing jobs to the far east for example, or the fact that salaries have been eroding for decades in real terms and that is why private debt has reached an all time high or the fact that free market banking has led to the greatest economic crisis of all time. But from its tone that seemed unlikely and I got a distinct sense of bias, and gave up.

40. At 12:54pm on 12 Nov 2010, writingsonthewall wrote:
14. At 10:58am on 12 Nov 2010, NorthSeaHalibut wrote:

Yes one must be careful. Not seen the twitterjoketrial that kicked off yesterday on the Internet. A lot of people are seriously mad, hoping, mad.

first they come for your pension
then they come for the students
then they come for the benefit claimants

then they come for the twitter users

Ct218 @ 77

Answer me this. Did your bank accept any public monies either directly or indirectly via bailouts of AIG and the like.

I actually suspect you are not a banker but posing as one in such a way as to stir up further anti banker feeling.

77. At 2:49pm on 12 Nov 2010, ct218 wrote:
I have read this blog for some time and every time there are at least a few responses blaming “bankers” for everything bad that’s happened in the economy over the last few years. I actually am a banker working in one of the large American investment banks in London. Blaming people like me is complete nonsense. 1. We underwrite profitable businesses debt and have a diversified balance sheet (the essence of banking) and nothing went wrong over the last couple of years. 2 We’re not a public service at all. We raise money for businesses from investors and maximise profit for ourselves as a PRIVATE company. 3. All the money we make is in fees and is attached to no risk whatsoever. Stop naming and blaming “bankers” and try to think of more logical and structured arguments!
.............

Oh dear, a lamb to the slaughter. I do pity you.

77. At 2:49pm on 12 Nov 2010, ct218 wrote:

"I have read this blog for some time and every time there are at least a few responses blaming “bankers” for everything bad that’s happened in the economy over the last few years. I actually am a banker working in one of the large American investment banks in London. Blaming people like me is complete nonsense."

Oh no, not another whining banker!

"1. We underwrite profitable businesses debt and have a diversified balance sheet (the essence of banking) and nothing went wrong over the last couple of years."

...and where does that profit come from (originaly I mean, not when it arrives on your P & L on your spreadsheet)

"2 We’re not a public service at all. We raise money for businesses from investors and maximise profit for ourselves as a PRIVATE company."

...and when you failed (dismally) who came crawling to Government to bail you out? Just because your bank didn't fail, any profits you took caused others to fail - or did you think money was an endlessly expanding to suit your increasing bonus?

"3. All the money we make is in fees and is attached to no risk whatsoever. Stop naming and blaming “bankers” and try to think of more logical and structured arguments!"

So you earn fees without taking risks? - wow that sounds like a game anyone can win at? - can I join in - or do you have to go to the 'right school'?

How about you spend the rest of the afternoon thinking very hard about where the profit generated comes from.

I'll give you 2 clues.

Surplus labour value
underestimation of environmental costs

..now if you have a better explanation then I'm sure we'd all love to hear it. Still I suspect you spend more time thinking about what to order for lunch than the fundamental source of your fees.

77. ct218:


Another banker in denial. Pull up a chair and join RBSTemp, Darksurfer and friends, you can sit and chin wag together about the joys of banking, about how you guys made the world a better place, and pray for the days when the public no longer think people in your profession are anything other than scum.

It's going to happen, you'll be respected again soon, we promise... any second now...I can almost hear someone cheering a banker... any second...


No wait, I was wrong, it isn't going to happen after all.


Ever.

77. At 2:49pm on 12 Nov 2010, ct218 wrote:

'We raise money for businesses from investors and maximise profit for ourselves...'



Without your 'investors' you are nothing.

71. At 2:39pm on 12 Nov 2010, yam yzf wrote:
"Governments' interference in the marketplace constantly distorts and destroys"
Whereas a lack of government interference resulted in the worst banking crisis ever.

#84 Guy Croft
"Any other winning diversification ideas?"

Clean solar panels.

Somebody has to do it.
Be a new age chimney sweep..