borgr0
Observer
+++
Posts: 1,188
|
Post by borgr0 on Jul 17, 2024 22:05:03 GMT
Yes. And Labour kept pushing for reorientation of the economy - to be overly reliant on the financial sector. A trend that started under Thatcher and has continued until present day Yes, trouble was we had no assets left (Coal tin iron etc) we couldn't compete with China etc in manufacturing and were not as big as America with its buying power etc What could we switch to. As Peter Hitchens says, we're probably DOOMED!!! But seriously, I don't know what we can switch to, we've seriously messed ourselves and gone so far down the wrong path, I'm not sure what else we can do. I think we can try to stop the financial sector from becoming an even bigger part of our economy though. At least try to maintain the status quo somewhat - and introduce some sensible banking regulations which New Labour won't do
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 17, 2024 22:41:43 GMT
Yes, trouble was we had no assets left (Coal tin iron etc) we couldn't compete with China etc in manufacturing and were not as big as America with its buying power etc What could we switch to. As Peter Hitchens says, we're probably DOOMED!!! But seriously, I don't know what we can switch to, we've seriously messed ourselves and gone so far down the wrong path, I'm not sure what else we can do. I think we can try to stop the financial sector from becoming an even bigger part of our economy though. At least try to maintain the status quo somewhat - and introduce some sensible banking regulations which New Labour won't do The answer was to become like the states (In our case by joining the EU) The states has a large enough internal economy to be able to control the number of cheap goods offered by China etc. The EU can do the same. Just until their standard of living catches up a bit.
|
|
borgr0
Observer
+++
Posts: 1,188
|
Post by borgr0 on Jul 17, 2024 22:44:06 GMT
You're mistaken, the states is falling behind China and we are on the decline thanks to cheap Chinese manufacturing, we can't outcompete them Zany.
Come on, aren't you in the sports business in Cambridge? That's what I remember hearing you say on PoFo UK back in 2016, I am 100% certain you already know that China is overtaking the US when it comes to this stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 18, 2024 6:39:52 GMT
I've seen that suggested many times, but never seen any evidence that it would have made a material difference. Especially as the banks were acting criminally anyway. It has been mostly suggested by experts in the field who certainly know more than me and whom I trust to know more than you, as you clearly have a political motivation in seeking to exonerate New Labour from blame for pursuing ever further Thatcherite deregulation. In essence, Thatcherism is bad unless New Labour was doing it, in which case it must be good or at least blameless. That appears to be a common strand in your thinking which displays an apparent inability or at least unwillingness to be even-handed in a non-politically biased way. My reason for supporting New labour is that they gave me a stable platform on which to build my business for 10 years. 10 years of no wild fluctuations in interest rates. No sudden changes in the amount of money customers had in their pockets. Until then we were all told there was nothing anyone could do to smooth out the bumps. Lending rates had to vary from 4 or 5% up to 17 to 18% on a regular bases. The idea that an end to boom and bust was meant to mean globally was put forward by the Tories and is what I rail against. It is an entirely new argument to me that the Left wing of Labour also think New Labour caused a global meltdown. If you have specific things New Labour introduced that caused the banks to be able to lend more subprime money in America please direct me to it. Simply saying I am in denial because I support Blair is no argument.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 18, 2024 6:53:26 GMT
You're mistaken, the states is falling behind China and we are on the decline thanks to cheap Chinese manufacturing, we can't outcompete them Zany. Come on, aren't you in the sports business in Cambridge? That's what I remember hearing you say on PoFo UK back in 2016, I am 100% certain you already know that China is overtaking the US when it comes to this stuff. The States may be falling behind China depending on what measure you use, my point was they are big enough to close the doors to China and have an internal market. Or tariff goods from China so they do not undercut American manufacturers without fear of reprisals in trade. Same applies to the EU. No I'm not in the sports business. I'm in the leisure industry. Many tried to guess what that means.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2024 7:33:31 GMT
It has been mostly suggested by experts in the field who certainly know more than me and whom I trust to know more than you, as you clearly have a political motivation in seeking to exonerate New Labour from blame for pursuing ever further Thatcherite deregulation. In essence, Thatcherism is bad unless New Labour was doing it, in which case it must be good or at least blameless. That appears to be a common strand in your thinking which displays an apparent inability or at least unwillingness to be even-handed in a non-politically biased way. My reason for supporting New labour is that they gave me a stable platform on which to build my business for 10 years. 10 years of no wild fluctuations in interest rates. No sudden changes in the amount of money customers had in their pockets. Until then we were all told there was nothing anyone could do to smooth out the bumps. Lending rates had to vary from 4 or 5% up to 17 to 18% on a regular bases. The idea that an end to boom and bust was meant to mean globally was put forward by the Tories and is what I rail against. It is an entirely new argument to me that the Left wing of Labour also think New Labour caused a global meltdown. If you have specific things New Labour introduced that caused the banks to be able to lend more subprime money in America please direct me to it. Simply saying I am in denial because I support Blair is no argument. I understand and acknowledge your reasons for supporting New Labour. Those years even to me seem like a golden age in comparison to what we have had to put up with since. I too acknowledge that much good was done and my many points of disenchantment - particularly re housing policy - are not worth my while rehashing here as they would represent an unnecessary thread derailment and have in any case been done a hundred times before. But you are labouring under a false assumption that needs correcting. I am not - neither is anyone else on the left to my knowledge - arguing that Labour was behind the global crash of 2008. You are inventing a straw man, having already seen me acknowledge in this thread that the crash began in the USA and was global. All I have done is agree with most learned critics that New Labour's continued pursuit of even more Thatcherite banking deregulation allowed our own banks to get away with even more in terms of dodgy practices, making the economic hit even worse than it might have been. You apparently cannot bring yourself to acknowledge this because your political heroes were responsible for it, so you resort to a straw man attack instead.
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 18, 2024 8:04:21 GMT
I think it would be hard to argue against the notion that with hindsight banking regulations at the time were too lax. As I recall the political argument at the time pushed by the Tory opposition was that they should be further relaxed.
Not sure this discussion is overly relevant to the likely success or failure of the current government. Cautiously optimistic although awed by the scale of problems they have inherited.
|
|
|
Post by brownlow on Jul 18, 2024 9:17:26 GMT
It remains relevant because we remain a hyperfinancialised economy, reliant on rising asset prices and an outsized financial sector, with about the lowest rates of productive investment in the OECD. It's a big part of why we never recovered.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2024 10:19:47 GMT
I think it would be hard to argue against the notion that with hindsight banking regulations at the time were too lax. As I recall the political argument at the time pushed by the Tory opposition was that they should be further relaxed. Not sure this discussion is overly relevant to the likely success or failure of the current government. Cautiously optimistic although awed by the scale of problems they have inherited. They are making some good early moves. Ending the de facto ban on setting up new onshore wind farms, negotiating in what seems to be a more positive way with junior doctors, backing the BBC though I have qualms about the license fee on principle. Housing is a big issue for me and long has been and was the top reason why I fell out of love with New Labour. But many positive steps here too. They are intending to ban no fault evictions whilst giving tenants greater rights to challenge excessive rent hikes. And the law applying to social housing in terms of decent standards especially re mould after the death of a young child a few years back is going to be extended to private tenants too. But there is also going to be provision for making it easier for landlords to evict tenants where they have good reason to. And this is good as well because bad tenants are not only bad news for landlords but often also bad news for other tenants. And breaking the excessive power of nimbys to get Britain building again has long been an essential step, though as they acknowledge themselves they do not intend to allow anything goes for developers, so some safeguards and an effective voice for reasonable objections is still to remain. Sounds good so far but of course in terms of getting the balance right the devil will be in the detail, which we don't have yet. What is already starting to become clear is that Starmer's Labour is already planning to tackle the housing crisis far more effectively than New Labour - let alone the Tories - ever did, especially in terms of tenants rights and making building easier. Though much less has been said about addressing the need for more social housing so far, but I am still hopeful that meaningful improvements might come here too, though this remains to be seen because my trust in that happening is far from absolute. But a guarded thumbs up from me so far. Definitely looks like an improvement on what came before, at least since 2010, and probably since as far back as the 80s insofar as housing is concerned.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 18, 2024 17:15:26 GMT
My reason for supporting New labour is that they gave me a stable platform on which to build my business for 10 years. 10 years of no wild fluctuations in interest rates. No sudden changes in the amount of money customers had in their pockets. Until then we were all told there was nothing anyone could do to smooth out the bumps. Lending rates had to vary from 4 or 5% up to 17 to 18% on a regular bases. The idea that an end to boom and bust was meant to mean globally was put forward by the Tories and is what I rail against. It is an entirely new argument to me that the Left wing of Labour also think New Labour caused a global meltdown. If you have specific things New Labour introduced that caused the banks to be able to lend more subprime money in America please direct me to it. Simply saying I am in denial because I support Blair is no argument. I understand and acknowledge your reasons for supporting New Labour. Those years even to me seem like a golden age in comparison to what we have had to put up with since. I too acknowledge that much good was done and my many points of disenchantment - particularly re housing policy - are not worth my while rehashing here as they would represent an unnecessary thread derailment and have in any case been done a hundred times before. But you are labouring under a false assumption that needs correcting. I am not - neither is anyone else on the left to my knowledge - arguing that Labour was behind the global crash of 2008. You are inventing a straw man, having already seen me acknowledge in this thread that the crash began in the USA and was global. All I have done is agree with most learned critics that New Labour's continued pursuit of even more Thatcherite banking deregulation allowed our own banks to get away with even more in terms of dodgy practices, making the economic hit even worse than it might have been. You apparently cannot bring yourself to acknowledge this because your political heroes were responsible for it, so you resort to a straw man attack instead. Yes I thought I indicated that I wanted to know what action (Thatcherite or otherwise) our government took that caused our banks to join the mealy in America and cause more damage to the UK because of those actions. To date I have not seen any explanation of what these were. You see the regulations our banks faced when lending in the U.S were U.S regulations. Even if we had different regulations they could not be applied to business carried out by international banks operating in the U.S It would be a bit like us telling Dyson he must follow British safety standards in his Malaysian factory. The most I can find as supporting evidence is this. The roots of the financial problems of the last two/three years can probably be traced back to the deregulation of financial markets in the US, the UK and the Western European economies that started in the 1970s and gathered pace in the early 1980s. Deregulation swept away many of the governmental/regulatory controls and freed up organisations to trade across a wider range of activities and territories.... archive.learnhigher.ac.uk/resources/files/business%20comm%20awareness/The%20Financial%20Crisis%20and%20its%20Impact%20on%20the%20UK%20and%20other%20Economies.pdfI can't find any reference to Blair or new Labour further deregulating the banks. Perhaps you have some links from old?
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Jul 18, 2024 19:40:52 GMT
You see the regulations our banks faced when lending in the U.S were U.S regulations. Even if we had different regulations they could not be applied to business carried out by international banks operating in the U.S It would be a bit like us telling Dyson he must follow British safety standards in his Malaysian factory. While it's true to say the range of products, say, Barclays could offer in the States would be regulated by the regulations there, the effect of those products would be consolidated in the financial statements of Barclays here in the UK. The regulator here would then look at the effect of the transactions carried out in the States on the risk structure of Barclays as a whole.
For example, if Barclays had issued a mortgage of £160k in the States, then Barclays would need an additional £13k of qualifying reserves within their consolidated accounts here. Put another way, the prudential effects of the transactions of UK based banks were regulated here wherever in the world those transactions took place.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 18, 2024 19:53:22 GMT
You see the regulations our banks faced when lending in the U.S were U.S regulations. Even if we had different regulations they could not be applied to business carried out by international banks operating in the U.S It would be a bit like us telling Dyson he must follow British safety standards in his Malaysian factory. While it's true to say the range of products, say, Barclays could offer in the States would be regulated by the regulations there, the effect of those products would be consolidated in the financial statements of Barclays here in the UK. The regulator here would then look at the effect of the transactions carried out in the States on the risk structure of Barclays as a whole.
For example, if Barclays had issued a mortgage of £160k in the States, then Barclays would need an additional £13k of qualifying reserves within their consolidated accounts here. Put another way, the prudential effects of the transactions of UK based banks were regulated here wherever in the world those transactions took place.
Agreed, but Barclays were never going to do anything that illegal. It was the risk taking that back fired and those risks were outside UK jurisdiction. I think so anyway. But this is more your area of expertise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2024 20:08:26 GMT
I understand and acknowledge your reasons for supporting New Labour. Those years even to me seem like a golden age in comparison to what we have had to put up with since. I too acknowledge that much good was done and my many points of disenchantment - particularly re housing policy - are not worth my while rehashing here as they would represent an unnecessary thread derailment and have in any case been done a hundred times before. But you are labouring under a false assumption that needs correcting. I am not - neither is anyone else on the left to my knowledge - arguing that Labour was behind the global crash of 2008. You are inventing a straw man, having already seen me acknowledge in this thread that the crash began in the USA and was global. All I have done is agree with most learned critics that New Labour's continued pursuit of even more Thatcherite banking deregulation allowed our own banks to get away with even more in terms of dodgy practices, making the economic hit even worse than it might have been. You apparently cannot bring yourself to acknowledge this because your political heroes were responsible for it, so you resort to a straw man attack instead. Yes I thought I indicated that I wanted to know what action (Thatcherite or otherwise) our government took that caused our banks to join the mealy in America and cause more damage to the UK because of those actions. To date I have not seen any explanation of what these were. You see the regulations our banks faced when lending in the U.S were U.S regulations. Even if we had different regulations they could not be applied to business carried out by international banks operating in the U.S It would be a bit like us telling Dyson he must follow British safety standards in his Malaysian factory. The most I can find as supporting evidence is this. The roots of the financial problems of the last two/three years can probably be traced back to the deregulation of financial markets in the US, the UK and the Western European economies that started in the 1970s and gathered pace in the early 1980s. Deregulation swept away many of the governmental/regulatory controls and freed up organisations to trade across a wider range of activities and territories.... archive.learnhigher.ac.uk/resources/files/business%20comm%20awareness/The%20Financial%20Crisis%20and%20its%20Impact%20on%20the%20UK%20and%20other%20Economies.pdfI can't find any reference to Blair or new Labour further deregulating the banks. Perhaps you have some links from old? You didn't look very far for the evidence. Took me a couple of minutes to find Gordon Brown - just before he lost the 2010 election - regretting and apologising for reducing banking regulations rather than increasing them. So out of the horse's mouth, so to speak.... citywire.com/new-model-adviser/news/i-was-wrong-to-let-the-banks-off-the-leash-gordon-brown-admits/a393730
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Jul 18, 2024 20:08:51 GMT
While it's true to say the range of products, say, Barclays could offer in the States would be regulated by the regulations there, the effect of those products would be consolidated in the financial statements of Barclays here in the UK. The regulator here would then look at the effect of the transactions carried out in the States on the risk structure of Barclays as a whole.
For example, if Barclays had issued a mortgage of £160k in the States, then Barclays would need an additional £13k of qualifying reserves within their consolidated accounts here. Put another way, the prudential effects of the transactions of UK based banks were regulated here wherever in the world those transactions took place.
Agreed, but Barclays were never going to do anything that illegal. It was the risk taking that back fired and those risks were outside UK jurisdiction. I think so anyway. But this is more your area of expertise. The point is, wherever the risks arose they should have been managed by the FSA as far as they affected British banks. Essentially, it was taking the £160k mortgage (above) and expressing it differently so the requirement for additional regulatory capital was not seen that caused most of the problems - not just here, as you say.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 18, 2024 20:57:29 GMT
Yes I thought I indicated that I wanted to know what action (Thatcherite or otherwise) our government took that caused our banks to join the mealy in America and cause more damage to the UK because of those actions. To date I have not seen any explanation of what these were. You see the regulations our banks faced when lending in the U.S were U.S regulations. Even if we had different regulations they could not be applied to business carried out by international banks operating in the U.S It would be a bit like us telling Dyson he must follow British safety standards in his Malaysian factory. The most I can find as supporting evidence is this. The roots of the financial problems of the last two/three years can probably be traced back to the deregulation of financial markets in the US, the UK and the Western European economies that started in the 1970s and gathered pace in the early 1980s. Deregulation swept away many of the governmental/regulatory controls and freed up organisations to trade across a wider range of activities and territories.... archive.learnhigher.ac.uk/resources/files/business%20comm%20awareness/The%20Financial%20Crisis%20and%20its%20Impact%20on%20the%20UK%20and%20other%20Economies.pdfI can't find any reference to Blair or new Labour further deregulating the banks. Perhaps you have some links from old? You didn't look very far for the evidence. Took me a couple of minutes to find Gordon Brown - just before he lost the 2010 election - regretting and apologising for reducing banking regulations rather than increasing them. So out of the horse's mouth, so to speak.... citywire.com/new-model-adviser/news/i-was-wrong-to-let-the-banks-off-the-leash-gordon-brown-admits/a393730Sorry I couldn't see which regulations he said he relaxed. Which ones that hadn't already gone with the Tories and effected British banks ability to sell subprime mortgage packages in America. Could you copy them here please.
|
|