Bod Diamond famously asked that the era of remorse on the part of bankers come to an end rather too soon for the public to stomach. He and Barclays parted company, partly as a consequence.
George Osborne has, however, now seemingly agreed with Bob: as the FT reports this morning:
Prohibition and permissiveness alternate, in banking regulation as in history. Puritanism gives way in time to the frolics of the Restoration. Two developments this week show we are on the cusp of such a change. First, ringfenced UK banks will be allowed to return surplus capital to parent groups. Second, senior City types will be spared a presumption of guilt for compliance failures on their watch.
Forget black hats and prayer books. Full-bottomed wigs and full-bosomed orange sellers are coming into fashion.
The move back towards lighter touch regulation was signalled earlier this year. It should arrive just in time for the next banking crisis. I am not sure how the public will stomach that.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Fool me once…
I wonder how this accords with Tory pronouncements during the recent general election?
Anyone out there with the strongest of stomachs who actually read their manifesto?
We won’t like it. Not one bit.
Sadly the majority of people haven’t got a clue about what is going on.
When was the ‘heavy’ touch? Did I miss something?
I came on to say much the same thing. The implication is that there had been meaningful regulation placed on the financial sector. As you say, when did this happen? I must have missed it?
Marvellous how propaganda trumps fact every time, isn’t it?
Oh but we must allow them their restoration comedy period, just a lark. And the rest of us, gin palaces.
Why would the tories regulate a sector which is a significant contributor to tory party funds? Makes no sense (from a Tory prespective). As a previous poster noted – oridinary people don’t have a clue (possibly through laziness) cue more hand wringing (& modest deck chair re-arranging) when things go pear shaped next time.
It has happened before a surprising number of times. I am taking care of my rare sea shells and silver threepenny bits.
Roll on Christmas pud then
Should be good in your house….
“ordinary people don’t have a clue (possibly through laziness) ”
I don’t think it’s just a case of laziness, I think people are too stressed whizzing their treadmill (or running the machinery that operates it). It should be politicians in opposition that are explaining things with clarity-unfortunately we don’t have that. Given that research showed that know more than 10% of MP’s (Positive Money’s research) had any idea at all about how the Banking system operates. This means illiteracy exists where it is most needed. The Tories don’t care by and large as they are beneficiaries of this but Labour needs to get the message out and pretty damn quick!!
I’m not a great fan of Edmund Burke but I agree with the quote that Roy Hattersley included in a recent article dealing with politicians and principle:
“Edmund Burke thought it necessary to remind the electors of Bristol that their ‘representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion'”
The more Labour panders to the ‘defecit narrative’ the more it betrays the people it should be representing wholeheartedly.
Please, Please, Please will someone who fully understands this stuff come up with a “sound bite”, “phrase”, “saying”, “anecdote”, “limerick”, anything which sums up the major differences between the present governments position and pqe, corbynomics call it what you will.
Because, I can follow most of what is explained but I will freely admit that when I try to explain it to someone else I very soon get lost, which then can only do damage. While I am no genious I am not a complete dimbo either so if someone in my situation cannot help spread the word what hope is there of change.
So come on those of you with the knowledge give us all the tools we need to explain the rudiments of this,
Because (and I say this with the greatest respect as I really do value this blog Richard)
you can write as much as you like in places like this but if the message doesn’t get out with clear understandable meaning “there ain’t nothing gonna change buddy”.
I will try
But not tonight
I did write this some time ago to try to explain in simple terms:
https://petermartin2001.wordpress.com/2013/10/25/a-fairy-story/
Thankyou Peter for a very interesting story, but I can’t quite see how this helps the problem or am I just thick?
You see when I try to explain pqe, as soon as it comes to the bit where basically the government should spend to stimulate the economy thats when it all falls down as people then flip into, that would be inflationary and Brown sold the gold to cheap, introduced tax credits and encouraged scroungers which is now a target of Osborne’s and of course as we all know the Labour party was wholly and single handedly reponsible for the world crisis of 2008 and everything bad that has happend since.
That is what happens, as I have suggested before it may be all very well to make progress here as anyone who reads this and similar pages at least has an interest in the subject no matter what their views or level of knowlege, but when I read that the vast majority of our politions are clueless as to how things work then surely it is time to embark on an education campain for all as sitting contemplating our navels will achive nothing.
This is why I have asked if someone can think of something straightforward that would promote pqe in the eyes of the majority, it wont be easy but I believe vital, as the government is in the driving seat and Corbyn has his hands full fending off his own enemies. Remember some progress may be being made but this is nothing to what will be needed as your enlightend vote only counts the same as that of a sleepwalking brainwashed zombie.
Anytime before 2020 will do but the sooner the better eh?
I am working on a guide to PQE
But stuff keeps getting in the way
Like work
That’s strange I’ve the same problem.
But every job I’ve ever had has been the same, if it wasn’t for the people you work for, the people you work with and the customers the job would be wonderful.haha.
Cliff-I understand the frustration you feel and it’s typical that many of us feel it is our inadequacy when in reality: IT IS THE INADEQUACY OF THE ECONOMICS PROFESSION AND POLITICIANS WHO BLOODY WELL CAN’T COMMUNICATE PROPERLY. So don’t feel bad about yourself.
What we need to blast out is: There’s no shortage of money only resources
Inflation is the only limiter (and a certain amount of
that is OK-economies can grow with up to 40%!)
There is a magic money tree and we can create the sort
of society we want with it.
Cliff,
You see when I try to explain pqe, as soon as it comes to the bit where basically the government should spend to stimulate the economy…
We all have the same problem. Invariably we’ll get some phrase like “Governments shouldn’t just print money”. That’s my cue to get out my wallet and, if I’m lucky, take out a £5 or £10 note and say “what’s this then? It looks like it’s printed to me. Who printed it? The BoE I presume -unless it’s a forgery- and we all know the BoE is 100% owned by Govt”
I then explain that money isn’t the creation of God! He hasn’t made a quick visit to the UK created all the pounds that He thinks we might reasonably need and left strict instructions that we should not, under any circumstances, create any more!
That often annoys the hell out of those of a right wing disposition because its really subjecting their cherished beliefs to ridicule. We’ll not win over everyone. Tax credits are a problem because wages are too low. The taxpayer is, or was, being asked to subsidise employers who pay less than living wages. That can only be fixed by a return to the situation where Govt does its best to create conditions for full employment.
I frequently show people a £10 note and say this is what government dent looks like
I tore one in half in front of an audience recently: it really shocked them
Then I explained that was what George Osborne would be doing by running a surplus
Thankyou Simon for your thoughts, some how I already feel a little better that I am not the only one with the problem.
Perhaps if Richard will bear with us we may be able to dwell a little longer on this as I note that below are some very interesting ideas coming forth from MayP and particularly JohnM which just for the moment if it could be slimmed down a bit to make it slightly more direct and punchy is the sort of thing I was hoping for.
Did anybody profit from the last banking crisis?
Or the one before it, and the one before that?
Are the guilty parties penniless and ostracised? Or are they still familiar faces, turning up at Glyndebourne every year, at Henley, the directors boxes at the races, and the better sort of golf club?
Were there beneficiaries from massive shifts in wealth that happened in these crises?
Or from any bailouts?
Or from economic policies intended to provide liquidity that ended up inflating asset bubbles?
Could it be that there’s a ‘shock doctrine’ that regards a crisis as an opportunity to push the neoliberal agenda deeper into politics and economics and the institutions of the nation?
Could it be that someone *likes* a profitable factory for economic crises, and he or they and Mr Osborne see the Laissez-Faire approach to banking as a sound and sensible and beneficial policy for everyone who matters to the Chancellor?
Be careful in your criticisms: are they misdirected? If you’re criticising someone for the consequences of their policies, when they regard those very consequences as successes, someone might be laughing at you: and they’re winning.
Nile
(& I think Cliff (above) should read also;
one of the great things about the FT is it’s clear-eyed view of happenings, unencumbered by political or theological partisanship & completely I mean completely amoral.
The FT is clear that the QE that happened benefitted the very wealthy. It lead to a huge bubble in assets. So, if you want to know who won;
1) Anyone who owns a house in London UNLESS they have children who also want to own a house in London & aren’t beneficiaries of a huge offshore Trust Fund
2) Conceptual artists
3) People in possession of rare artefacts
4) Yacht-makers
5) Yacht crew
6) Chelsea FC
7) Some lords leaping, but I’d rather not say which lords nor which way they leapt
Please, Please, Please will someone who fully understands this stuff come up with a “sound bite”, “phrase”, “saying”, “anecdote”, “limerick”, anything which sums up the major differences between the present governments position and pqe, corbynomics call it what you will.
If there was a limerick I think we’d be there already!
But I think first principles have to be engaged.
What is an economy for? It is constructed by humankind – it didn’t arrive, unless my scientific understanding is more limited than feared, with the big bang.
So perhaps the answer to that might be that it is created to distribute resources in as beneficial a manner as possible in order to allow all humankind to fulfil their potential to have an enjoyable life.
Is this happening?
If it is then we can give up now.
If not then improvements are needed.
PQE is not revolutionary which is good because revolutions are very messy and destroy resources. So PQE tweaks the current systems to improve and promote the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Perhaps Economic Benthamism is an acceptable summary?
(It may be less than ideal that his first name was also Jeremy… )
It won’t be me today
Feeling utterly whacked this Saturday morning
Richard….if you are admitting to feeling whacked then you really are! Get some rest PDQ! No rugby match to go to with one of your sons playing?
Am planning a day or two off…soon
Money was invented so that those who do not [work] could profit from those who do [work].
QE was invented so that those who do not [work] could continue to profit from [not] working after backing the wrong horses [continually].
PQE was invented so that the money benefits those who do [work] by not putting it into the hands [intentionally] of those who do not [work]
Like all good ideas; PQE will be eventually morphed into QE by those who [work] for those who do not [work].
The very idea that those who [work] can have something that those who do not [work] cannot get their hands on tends to lead to intense oral frothing in those that do not [work] [have morals] [pay any attention to existing laws or regulations anyway]
Please note: the previous financial crisis was as a result if intense stupidity and greed by those who consider themselves to be above any, and all, laws.
Those same people, who remain unpunished and unrepentant, are still around.
They have no regrets. No morals. No interest in “society”.
Interestingly put
JohnM. Well done, to me those few paragraphs sum up it brilliantly, and if you wouldn’t mind I would like to paraphrase parts of that in future. Thankyou.
“PQE is not revolutionary which is good because revolutions are very messy and destroy resources. ”
True, but if the morons in power go on the way they are going it will turn out that THEY are the security threat, certainly not Corbyn.
@MayP
This may have enough sounds bites to keep you going for a while!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk