So does this story amount to anything more than countries tend to put their own interest first ?
Perhaps Britain can now do likewise instead of the guilt ridden cringe we had under Cameron.
It's not even that. The speech was from before he was Commerce Secretary.
It amounts to "Rich businessmen lobbies small country to change their rules and allow businessman to become even richer"
Merry Christmas everyone
Charles, does your last quote inadvertently sum up how we should view the forthcoming Trump administration?
No. I think he is going to revert to traditional American policy: nakedly self-interested (America not personal) - he will work with anyone where it makes sense for the US. Ivdobt think he's very interested in international relations in theory.
My guess is he will push hard against China because they are a threat; Russia he doesn't care about so will accept spheres of influence; Europe will be largely ignored. The UK will get support - and a trade deal - because they will see an opportunity to get better terms today than in 5 years and because they value our expertise and contacts with countries where the US is less well placed.
We will be first in the Queue. First in the queue for the dockside hooker treatment...
Lord King expertly missed all the warning signs of the impending financial crash back in 07/08, of course :-)
AIUI he didn't miss them but the Bank had no power or oversight in capital reserves or leverage so just left it to the FSA who bungled it. It actually happened exactly as Peter Lilley said it would. That's wrt Northern Rock anyway.
The early internal briefing papers were far, far too sanguine about what was happening.
(Or rather, they were fundamentally correct about what eventual loan loses were likely to be, but failed to realise how the bank funding environment was likely to change, and what impact that was likely to have. They also failed to appreciate that banks like Northern Rock sold the loans that were easiest to sell, and kept the ones that no one else washed.)
So does this story amount to anything more than countries tend to put their own interest first ?
Perhaps Britain can now do likewise instead of the guilt ridden cringe we had under Cameron.
It's not even that. The speech was from before he was Commerce Secretary.
It amounts to "Rich businessmen lobbies small country to change their rules and allow businessman to become even richer"
Strange that it was deemed important enough to be a header.. Do you think it would have been had it been positive news about Brexit?
I think the Times has decided their market positioning and is framing their contents accordingly.
The Times supported Remain so its no surprise they've continued to predict disaster.
I don't think one follows from the other. they both are results of the same cause.
I agree.
Its an interesting contrast to the Sunday Times.
I would think though that the Sunday Times has a much wider demographic readership than the Times ie includes a much higher proportion of Leave voters.
So does this story amount to anything more than countries tend to put their own interest first ?
Perhaps Britain can now do likewise instead of the guilt ridden cringe we had under Cameron.
It's not even that. The speech was from before he was Commerce Secretary.
It amounts to "Rich businessmen lobbies small country to change their rules and allow businessman to become even richer"
Strange that it was deemed important enough to be a header.. Do you think it would have been had it been positive news about Brexit?
I think the Times has decided their market positioning and is framing their contents accordingly.
Sorry , I meant on here not The Times... seemed a bit gossipy/rumour to be a thread on Christmas Day, but I guess some people thought it was worth it.
To be fair it's quick to grab a screen shot & I can imagine TSE had better thinks to do than write a thoughtful piece on Christmas Day.
Cheap shot for you, Charles.
Wasn't meant to be! It's not a great header but it is relevant and probably took less than 5 minutes. I wouldn't want to write a well thought through piece on Christmas Day!
So does this story amount to anything more than countries tend to put their own interest first ?
Perhaps Britain can now do likewise instead of the guilt ridden cringe we had under Cameron.
It's not even that. The speech was from before he was Commerce Secretary.
It amounts to "Rich businessmen lobbies small country to change their rules and allow businessman to become even richer"
Merry Christmas everyone
Charles, does your last quote inadvertently sum up how we should view the forthcoming Trump administration?
No. I think he is going to revert to traditional American policy: nakedly self-interested (America not personal) - he will work with anyone where it makes sense for the US. Ivdobt think he's very interested in international relations in theory.
My guess is he will push hard against China because they are a threat; Russia he doesn't care about so will accept spheres of influence; Europe will be largely ignored. The UK will get support - and a trade deal - because they will see an opportunity to get better terms today than in 5 years and because they value our expertise and contacts with countries where the US is less well placed.
We will be first in the Queue. First in the queue for the dockside hooker treatment...
So no change there then from the Blair / Brown / Cameron years.
At least with Trump as President Britain wont be willingly fawning towards the US government.
So does this story amount to anything more than countries tend to put their own interest first ?
Perhaps Britain can now do likewise instead of the guilt ridden cringe we had under Cameron.
It's not even that. The speech was from before he was Commerce Secretary.
It amounts to "Rich businessmen lobbies small country to change their rules and allow businessman to become even richer"
Merry Christmas everyone
Charles, does your last quote inadvertently sum up how we should view the forthcoming Trump administration?
No. I think he is going to revert to traditional American policy: nakedly self-interested (America not personal) - he will work with anyone where it makes sense for the US. Ivdobt think he's very interested in international relations in theory.
My guess is he will push hard against China because they are a threat; Russia he doesn't care about so will accept spheres of influence; Europe will be largely ignored. The UK will get support - and a trade deal - because they will see an opportunity to get better terms today than in 5 years and because they value our expertise and contacts with countries where the US is less well placed.
We will be first in the Queue. First in the queue for the dockside hooker treatment...
So no change there then from the Blair / Brown / Cameron years.
At least with Trump as President Britain wont be willingly fawning towards the US government.
Wannah bet? Britain will be fawning her arse off to get in Trumps good graces, where in actual fact, Britain already is, despite the Times alarming headline.
Southam Observer says " Lord King expertly missed all the warning signs of the impending financial crash back in 07/08, of course"
Responsibility for regulation of banks was taken away from the B of E by Gordon Brown after the 1997 election. The Financial Services Authority took over.
Howard Davies was Chair of the FSA from 1996-2003. Callum McCarthy was Chair from 2003-2008.
The above two are primarily responsible for the failure of the FSA to monitor banks leading up to the bank crash. Banks lent too much money at too high risk; too low interest rates; and with too little capital.
Lord King expertly missed all the warning signs of the impending financial crash back in 07/08, of course :-)
AIUI he didn't miss them but the Bank had no power or oversight in capital reserves or leverage so just left it to the FSA who bungled it. It actually happened exactly as Peter Lilley said it would. That's wrt Northern Rock anyway.
The early internal briefing papers were far, far too sanguine about what was happening.
(Or rather, they were fundamentally correct about what eventual loan loses were likely to be, but failed to realise how the bank funding environment was likely to change, and what impact that was likely to have. They also failed to appreciate that banks like Northern Rock sold the loans that were easiest to sell, and kept the ones that no one else washed.)
Yes, but I thought the issue was that they didn't think it was their problem so just left it alone.
Lord King expertly missed all the warning signs of the impending financial crash back in 07/08, of course :-)
AIUI he didn't miss them but the Bank had no power or oversight in capital reserves or leverage so just left it to the FSA who bungled it. It actually happened exactly as Peter Lilley said it would. That's wrt Northern Rock anyway.
The early internal briefing papers were far, far too sanguine about what was happening.
(Or rather, they were fundamentally correct about what eventual loan loses were likely to be, but failed to realise how the bank funding environment was likely to change, and what impact that was likely to have. They also failed to appreciate that banks like Northern Rock sold the loans that were easiest to sell, and kept the ones that no one else washed.)
Comments
(Or rather, they were fundamentally correct about what eventual loan loses were likely to be, but failed to realise how the bank funding environment was likely to change, and what impact that was likely to have. They also failed to appreciate that banks like Northern Rock sold the loans that were easiest to sell, and kept the ones that no one else washed.)
Its an interesting contrast to the Sunday Times.
I would think though that the Sunday Times has a much wider demographic readership than the Times ie includes a much higher proportion of Leave voters.
At least with Trump as President Britain wont be willingly fawning towards the US government.
Responsibility for regulation of banks was taken away from the B of E by Gordon Brown after the 1997 election. The Financial Services Authority took over.
Howard Davies was Chair of the FSA from 1996-2003.
Callum McCarthy was Chair from 2003-2008.
The above two are primarily responsible for the failure of the FSA to monitor banks leading up to the bank crash. Banks lent too much money at too high risk; too low interest rates; and with too little capital.
So Box! Box!
Back to the pits and get a set of softs everyone.
Is washing loans the same as laundering them?
Statistically, so was flying.