Asset Protection for the Already Wealthy
#11
From 1997 to 2001 the Tories, in opposition, were led - just as they are now - by a populist buffoon; a man totally out of his depth who believed he could somehow blag it with a blend of faux bonhomie and telegraphed jokes. The outcome was that he was eviscerated by (and whatever you might think of him, there's no disputing this) a brilliant performer both at the despatch box and in front of camera. Hague eventually lost the 2001 election by 150 seats.

Johnson is being politely rebuked by an ineffectual middle manager and getting away with murder. If Starmer was what Labour needed to repair the damage of the Corbyn era, I can't see how he's right for what's needed next. A courteous, competent, well-prepared parliamentarian is tantamount to condemnation with faint praise; that I have nothing really bad to say about the bloke is about as enthusiastic as I can get.

I can see the sheer intractability of the way the UK is now governed providing sufficient ammunition for Indyref 2 to become an irresistible proposition. I doubt the Scots, given another opportunity, would vote 'No' again.
Reply
#12
(09-07-2021, 08:55 PM)Ossian Wrote: I doubt the Scots, given another opportunity, would vote 'No' again.

Yet they'd be bankrupt in a week and still out of the EU.

(09-07-2021, 06:36 PM)Tom Joad Wrote:
baggy1 Wrote:Unfortunately there are far more factors that need to be built in here. One of the key components to the asset wealth issue we are facing is the ‘landlord’ growth over the past 20 years. In a time where there is a shortage of housing for the population allowing landlords to buy so many properties with freedom has meant that there are always more buyers therefore pushing prices up. This is where the focus should be, not on pensioners ruining the lives of the youth (creating another social distraction).
Spot on B1. The ease with which you can buy a 2nd property once you have the first one has led to a lack of social housing and rent inflation. This whole argument is divisive and inaccurate. The ruling party is crooked and inept whereas the opposition appears merely inept. The country desperately needs a valid opposition party that provides a genuine alternative and ensures decisions are accountable. (And before anyone starts painting me left or right, I'm an (almost lifelong), self employed small businessman, not a Trotsky-ite).

There is a clear link between this phenomenon, Gordon Brown nationalising private risk and the cheapest money in 500 years. As night follows day.

I genuinely find myself in the position of worrying deeply about what may transpire here. I can see the emergence of a caucus of the young and unpossessed far to the left of Corbyn's wettest dreams. And the right will only have itself to blame for continuing the trajectory of Brown's response to the financial crisis.

We are fucked. I'm out of active politics for good to focus on my businesses and the preservation of wealth for the family full time.
Reply
#13
(09-08-2021, 08:59 AM)Protheroe Wrote:
(09-07-2021, 08:55 PM)Ossian Wrote: I doubt the Scots, given another opportunity, would vote 'No' again.

Yet they'd be bankrupt in a week and still out of the EU.


I'm sitting here in England thinking I'm stuck with the Tories in perpetuity and there's not a damn thing I can do about it. If I was living north of the border - which I certainly would be if our caring obligations didn't preclude it - I'd be thinking that , should the opportunity come around again, I could be rid of them and the English in perpetuity. 

I'd vote to take the pain, which would be temporary, and consider it well worth it. Bankrupt and out of the EU is coming either way.
Reply
#14
(09-08-2021, 08:59 AM)Protheroe Wrote:
(09-07-2021, 08:55 PM)Ossian Wrote: I doubt the Scots, given another opportunity, would vote 'No' again.

Yet they'd be bankrupt in a week and still out of the EU.

(09-07-2021, 06:36 PM)Tom Joad Wrote:
baggy1 Wrote:Unfortunately there are far more factors that need to be built in here. One of the key components to the asset wealth issue we are facing is the ‘landlord’ growth over the past 20 years. In a time where there is a shortage of housing for the population allowing landlords to buy so many properties with freedom has meant that there are always more buyers therefore pushing prices up. This is where the focus should be, not on pensioners ruining the lives of the youth (creating another social distraction).
Spot on B1. The ease with which you can buy a 2nd property once you have the first one has led to a lack of social housing and rent inflation. This whole argument is divisive and inaccurate. The ruling party is crooked and inept whereas the opposition appears merely inept. The country desperately needs a valid opposition party that provides a genuine alternative and ensures decisions are accountable. (And before anyone starts painting me left or right, I'm an (almost lifelong), self employed small businessman, not a Trotsky-ite).

There is a clear link between this phenomenon, Gordon Brown nationalising private risk and the cheapest money in 500 years. As night follows day.

I genuinely find myself in the position of worrying deeply about what may transpire here. I can see the emergence of a caucus of the young and unpossessed far to the left of Corbyn's wettest dreams. And the right will only have itself to blame for continuing the trajectory of Brown's response to the financial crisis.

We are fucked. I'm out of active politics for good to focus on my businesses and the preservation of wealth for the family full time.

So you’re saying a policy which Brown and Darling did first, having been mocked by the Tories, only for them to then say nothing when Merkel and then the US did exactly the same, was somehow a mistake? I loathe the banks and propping up their arrogant idiocy (see The Big Short) by throwing  public money at them made me sick. But if we hadn’t? The real disgrace is that not a single banker in this country went to jail. In the US only one naive idiot got caught on record and went down. Blaming Brown for the state we’re in is like blaming The band on the Titanic for distracting the crew from the oncoming iceberg.
Reply
#15
(09-08-2021, 09:00 PM)Brentbaggie Wrote: So you’re saying a policy which Brown and Darling did first, having been mocked by the Tories, only for them to then say nothing when Merkel and then the US did exactly the same, was somehow a mistake? I loathe the banks and propping up their arrogant idiocy (see The Big Short) by throwing  public money at them made me sick. But if we hadn’t? The real disgrace is that not a single banker in this country went to jail. In the US only one naive idiot got caught on record and went down. Blaming Brown for the state we’re in is like blaming The band on the Titanic for distracting the crew from the oncoming iceberg.

But if we hadn't?

As I've stated on here ad nauseum for over a decade it was perfectly reasonable for the state to underwrite a proportion of individually held private wealth. But not to underwrite the institutions which instead should have been broken up with real competition and caps on market share introduced.

As it is now in the US, the banks are even larger than they were pre-2008. They are not only too big to fail, they are too big to manage and possibly too big to exist. The old phrase was, 'Main Street will never again bail out Wall Street. That's a noble claim, but the evidence suggests that in the UK and the US, and also in the eurozone, where several countries simply still have broken banking systems (Germany, Italy), the taxpayers are still on the hook. Very little has been done, and another day of reckoning is potentially around the corner.

What do we do then?

I did very well out the 2008 response when Brown reimbursed my investments in Kaupthing Edge & Landsbanki. I've ridden the wave of cheap money to accumulate assets since. And therein lies the problem; if you nationalise risk then no one bearing any risk will encourage you to privatise it again. The state literally backs asset accumulation for the already equity rich - the rest of you - renters, equity poor, young - well you lot can fuck off.

Unsustainable on every political and moral level.
Reply
#16
Allowing profligate banks to go to the wall, telling their executives to collect their personal belongings and clear the building (bonuses foregone), banging up some of the same with assets frozen and passports handed over... all of that, and more, has its attractions.

Was there really time to do that while reassuring the public that their money was safe, underwritten and guaranteed? How believable would that have been, whatever the assurances? Bearing in mind that, even to this day, there are still plenty out there who believe it was 'Labour's spending that bankrupted the country'.

Much as I'd have loved it, it would have been carnage. None of which excuses what hasn't been done since.
Reply
#17
(09-09-2021, 09:52 AM)Ossian Wrote: Allowing profligate banks to go to the wall, telling their executives to collect their personal belongings and clear the building (bonuses foregone), banging up some of the same with assets frozen and passports handed over... all of that, and more, has its attractions.

Was there really time to do that while reassuring the public that their money was safe, underwritten and guaranteed? How believable would that have been, whatever the assurances? Bearing in mind that, even to this day, there are still plenty out there who believe it was 'Labour's spending that bankrupted the country'.

Much as I'd have loved it, it would have been carnage. None of which excuses what hasn't been done since.

There was plenty of time to smash RBS to pieces after it fell into state hands.

Brown was also a vandal by conspiring with Lloyds to completely dissolve its shareholder value by taking over HBOS. The ultimate insider trade.

Yes it would have been carnage, like the wholly necessary restructuring of the economy at the beginning of the 1980s. But we'd all be the better for it now, as we all became better off for it then.
Reply
#18
(09-09-2021, 10:01 AM)Protheroe Wrote:
(09-09-2021, 09:52 AM)Ossian Wrote: Allowing profligate banks to go to the wall, telling their executives to collect their personal belongings and clear the building (bonuses foregone), banging up some of the same with assets frozen and passports handed over... all of that, and more, has its attractions.

Was there really time to do that while reassuring the public that their money was safe, underwritten and guaranteed? How believable would that have been, whatever the assurances? Bearing in mind that, even to this day, there are still plenty out there who believe it was 'Labour's spending that bankrupted the country'.

Much as I'd have loved it, it would have been carnage. None of which excuses what hasn't been done since.

There was plenty of time to smash RBS to pieces after it fell into state hands.

Brown was also a vandal by conspiring with Lloyds to completely dissolve its shareholder value by taking over HBOS. The ultimate insider trade.

Yes it would have been carnage, like the wholly necessary restructuring of the economy at the beginning of the 1980s. But we'd all be the better for it now, as we all became better off for it then.

Totally agree with you Proth.

That was the best time to smash a dangerous, and reckless practice in a quasi Monopoly. Yes some people would have lost a lot, that happens in recession, trusting the banks when they were being that reckless was risky, its not the government's job to protect your risk.
Reply
#19
We also shouldn't overlook that the seeds of the financial crash were sown in the so-called 'Big Bang' of the mid 80s.

"An unintended consequence" Nigel lawson called it in 2010.
Reply
#20
(09-09-2021, 10:16 AM)Ossian Wrote: We also shouldn't overlook that the seeds of the financial crash were sown in the so-called 'Big Bang' of the mid 80s.

"An unintended consequence" Nigel lawson called it in 2010.

Yes, but the seeds of the City of London's continuuing global pre eminence were also sown at the same time.

I don't think there's any general disagreement that regulation wasn't optimal. Neither too much nor too little, but simply the wrong regulation. Unfortunately the holes only became recognised by regulators after the event. Even the canaries in the coalmine I witnessed in the leveraged commercial property sector weren't obviously signalling systemic risk, I don't think anyone - even on the inside was aware of that until it happened.

What the state did have control of was the response. And the response was wrong. For instance there was no need to reimburse me for foolishly chasing returns in Landsbanki or Kaupthing Edge.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
{myadvertisements[zone_2]}