Remember the unfortunately named Anthony Weiner, who had to resign from Congress over sexting?
He's now running for Mayor of NYC, and today it emerged that he's been sexting again. He's staying in the race.
Eliot Spitzer, who resigned as NY governor over a sex scandal, is back and running for state comptroller. He has a new ad out which starts "I failed big time."
For the refi market this effectively kicks the can down the road at a limited cost to the government. Reasonably sensible way of managing a problem.
Why is it desirable to kick the can? If we need to deleverage in aggregate then some people at the margins will inevitably need to cut their cloth according to their means. As someone once said in another context, "If it isn't hurting, it isn't working."
Because the economy is improving.
Delaying the crunch point for 3 years will ensure that it can be worked out in a more gradual fashion. A lot of people will be in a stronger position, the banks will be more able to extend credit and you won't get a a glut of repossessions artificially depressing house prices.
If you dumped everything now, you would end up with a lot of repossessions (or reduction in spending), personal tragedy and capital write offs for banks.
Huge capital write-offs for the banks. Enormous. Almost like a toxic black hole.
You'd need a massive capital infusion to cover the potential losses if house prices were even to fall 20%. It's worth introducing schemes to defray that risk.
Clearly high house prices are not a good thing, but the adjustment would be better achieved through real rather than nominal price adjustments and through increasing building programmes.
Or let the banks fail and use the money saved from bailouts to provide a parachute for individuals with distressed mortgages instead.
Mass bank failure would be a disaster for the economy.
I know you have a very simplistic view of "banksters" but they are an essential part of a functioning economy.
I agree properly functioning banks and bankers are an essential part of the economy. Banksters are an essential part of why we don't have properly functioning banks.
For the refi market this effectively kicks the can down the road at a limited cost to the government. Reasonably sensible way of managing a problem.
Why is it desirable to kick the can? If we need to deleverage in aggregate then some people at the margins will inevitably need to cut their cloth according to their means. As someone once said in another context, "If it isn't hurting, it isn't working."
Because the economy is improving.
Delaying the crunch point for 3 years will ensure that it can be worked out in a more gradual fashion. A lot of people will be in a stronger position, the banks will be more able to extend credit and you won't get a a glut of repossessions artificially depressing house prices.
If you dumped everything now, you would end up with a lot of repossessions (or reduction in spending), personal tragedy and capital write offs for banks.
Huge capital write-offs for the banks. Enormous. Almost like a toxic black hole.
You'd need a massive capital infusion to cover the potential losses if house prices were even to fall 20%. It's worth introducing schemes to defray that risk.
Clearly high house prices are not a good thing, but the adjustment would be better achieved through real rather than nominal price adjustments and through increasing building programmes.
Or let the banks fail and use the money saved from bailouts to provide a parachute for individuals with distressed mortgages instead.
Mass bank failure would be a disaster for the economy.
I know you have a very simplistic view of "banksters" but they are an essential part of a functioning economy.
I agree properly functioning banks and bankers are an essential part of the economy. Banksters are an essential part of why we don't have properly functioning banks.
Perhaps you can define what you call a "bankster" in more conventional terms?
Perhaps you can define what you call a "bankster" in more conventional terms?
1) too big to fail banks = privatizing profits and socializing losses on an enormous scale e.g. the capital write-offs mentioned earlier
2) not having the glass-steagal type split between retail and investment means you get tbtf banks in London sucking in all the capital in the country and then either gambling with it or investing it in mega projects round the world while the rest of the country is starved of low-level investment capital
3) the grip the banksters have on the political class means they can pretty much do what they like e.g. operate as cartels scamming the entire planet in every market there is e.g.
There is certainly a structural failure in the model of banking in that a global banking industry that we have does not particularly serve the retail and mid-market corporate sector well. That reflects both the centripetal force that London exerts on the UK economy, the nation's historically global perspective and the higher returns for shareholders that can be generated from larger/global capital employment that from retail and mid-market corporate banking. I'm a fan of reintroducing G-S because I don't think the perceived benefits of abolition (principally lower cost of capital) have been sufficient to offset the downsides.
But you haven't created a logical link between (1) and (2) and (3) and (4).
There is certainly a structural failure in the model of banking in that a global banking industry that we have does not particularly serve the retail and mid-market corporate sector well. That reflects both the centripetal force that London exerts on the UK economy, the nation's historically global perspective and the higher returns for shareholders that can be generated from larger/global capital employment that from retail and mid-market corporate banking. I'm a fan of reintroducing G-S because I don't think the perceived benefits of abolition (principally lower cost of capital) have been sufficient to offset the downsides.
But you haven't created a logical link between (1) and (2) and (3) and (4).
The logical link is banksters make money out of all four and they own the political class.
There is certainly a structural failure in the model of banking in that a global banking industry that we have does not particularly serve the retail and mid-market corporate sector well. That reflects both the centripetal force that London exerts on the UK economy, the nation's historically global perspective and the higher returns for shareholders that can be generated from larger/global capital employment that from retail and mid-market corporate banking. I'm a fan of reintroducing G-S because I don't think the perceived benefits of abolition (principally lower cost of capital) have been sufficient to offset the downsides.
But you haven't created a logical link between (1) and (2) and (3) and (4).
The logical link is banksters make money out of all four and they own the political class.
And that, my friend, is where you don your tin foil hat and depart from the world that the rest of us inhabit.
There is certainly a structural failure in the model of banking in that a global banking industry that we have does not particularly serve the retail and mid-market corporate sector well. That reflects both the centripetal force that London exerts on the UK economy, the nation's historically global perspective and the higher returns for shareholders that can be generated from larger/global capital employment that from retail and mid-market corporate banking. I'm a fan of reintroducing G-S because I don't think the perceived benefits of abolition (principally lower cost of capital) have been sufficient to offset the downsides.
But you haven't created a logical link between (1) and (2) and (3) and (4).
The logical link is banksters make money out of all four and they own the political class.
And that, my friend, is where you don your tin foil hat and depart from the world that the rest of us inhabit.
Easy enough for people to see for themselves. All they have to do is pay attention to the revolving door between the banks and the political class.
There is certainly a structural failure in the model of banking in that a global banking industry that we have does not particularly serve the retail and mid-market corporate sector well. That reflects both the centripetal force that London exerts on the UK economy, the nation's historically global perspective and the higher returns for shareholders that can be generated from larger/global capital employment that from retail and mid-market corporate banking. I'm a fan of reintroducing G-S because I don't think the perceived benefits of abolition (principally lower cost of capital) have been sufficient to offset the downsides.
But you haven't created a logical link between (1) and (2) and (3) and (4).
The logical link is banksters make money out of all four and they own the political class.
And that, my friend, is where you don your tin foil hat and depart from the world that the rest of us inhabit.
Easy enough for people to see for themselves. All they have to do is pay attention to the revolving door between the banks and the political class.
Please can you give some evidence of a "revolving door"?
There are some merchant bankers (Maude, Letwin) for example who go into politics after they have made their money - but this is through choice rather than anything else (and they are not particular senior). Given that investment banks are dependent on relationships with senior people to differentiate themselves they will often hire senior ex politicians, but these usually aren't very successful. Peter Sutherland is one of the few who really excelled in both worlds.
There is certainly a structural failure in the model of banking in that a global banking industry that we have does not particularly serve the retail and mid-market corporate sector well. That reflects both the centripetal force that London exerts on the UK economy, the nation's historically global perspective and the higher returns for shareholders that can be generated from larger/global capital employment that from retail and mid-market corporate banking. I'm a fan of reintroducing G-S because I don't think the perceived benefits of abolition (principally lower cost of capital) have been sufficient to offset the downsides.
But you haven't created a logical link between (1) and (2) and (3) and (4).
The logical link is banksters make money out of all four and they own the political class.
And that, my friend, is where you don your tin foil hat and depart from the world that the rest of us inhabit.
Easy enough for people to see for themselves. All they have to do is pay attention to the revolving door between the banks and the political class.
Please can you give some evidence of a "revolving door"?
There are some merchant bankers (Maude, Letwin) for example who go into politics after they have made their money - but this is through choice rather than anything else (and they are not particular senior). Given that investment banks are dependent on relationships with senior people to differentiate themselves they will often hire senior ex politicians, but these usually aren't very successful. Peter Sutherland is one of the few who really excelled in both worlds.
In the US the revolving door runs to thousands of individuals.
In the EU how many finance ministers who cooked their country's books to join the EU in cahoots with Wall St. banks then went off to join those banks coming back into govt after the crash to arrange the asset-stripping of their country to pay the debts they helped create - again in cahoots with the same Wall St. banks?
Please can you give some evidence of a "revolving door"?
In the UK the start date is 1997 not 2010.
In the US the revolving door runs to thousands of individuals.
In the EU how many finance ministers who cooked their country's books to join the EU in cahoots with Wall St. banks then went off to join those banks coming back into govt after the crash to arrange the asset-stripping of their country to pay the debts they helped create - again in cahoots with the same Wall St. banks?
1. UK examples were ones I could think of. Do tell me some Labour merchant bankers.
2. US: yes, but that's because they have a tradition of public service that we have lost.
3. Greece that I am aware of. Don't believe that there are others that have been proved. Goldman behaved very badly in Greece.
Please can you give some evidence of a "revolving door"?
In the UK the start date is 1997 not 2010.
In the US the revolving door runs to thousands of individuals.
In the EU how many finance ministers who cooked their country's books to join the EU in cahoots with Wall St. banks then went off to join those banks coming back into govt after the crash to arrange the asset-stripping of their country to pay the debts they helped create - again in cahoots with the same Wall St. banks?
1. UK examples were ones I could think of. Do tell me some Labour merchant bankers.
2. US: yes, but that's because they have a tradition of public service that we have lost.
3. Greece that I am aware of. Don't believe that there are others that have been proved. Goldman behaved very badly in Greece.
1) too big to fail banks = privatizing profits and socializing losses on an enormous scale e.g. the capital write-offs mentioned earlier
2) not having the glass-steagal type split between retail and investment means you get tbtf banks in London sucking in all the capital in the country and then either gambling with it or investing it in mega projects round the world while the rest of the country is starved of low-level investment capital
3) the grip the banksters have on the political class means they can pretty much do what they like e.g. operate as cartels scamming the entire planet in every market there is e.g.
Please can you give some evidence of a "revolving door"?
In the UK the start date is 1997 not 2010.
In the US the revolving door runs to thousands of individuals.
In the EU how many finance ministers who cooked their country's books to join the EU in cahoots with Wall St. banks then went off to join those banks coming back into govt after the crash to arrange the asset-stripping of their country to pay the debts they helped create - again in cahoots with the same Wall St. banks?
1. UK examples were ones I could think of. Do tell me some Labour merchant bankers.
2. US: yes, but that's because they have a tradition of public service that we have lost.
3. Greece that I am aware of. Don't believe that there are others that have been proved. Goldman behaved very badly in Greece.
1) too big to fail banks = privatizing profits and socializing losses on an enormous scale e.g. the capital write-offs mentioned earlier
2) not having the glass-steagal type split between retail and investment means you get tbtf banks in London sucking in all the capital in the country and then either gambling with it or investing it in mega projects round the world while the rest of the country is starved of low-level investment capital
3) the grip the banksters have on the political class means they can pretty much do what they like e.g. operate as cartels scamming the entire planet in every market there is e.g.
Please can you give some evidence of a "revolving door"?
In the UK the start date is 1997 not 2010.
In the US the revolving door runs to thousands of individuals.
In the EU how many finance ministers who cooked their country's books to join the EU in cahoots with Wall St. banks then went off to join those banks coming back into govt after the crash to arrange the asset-stripping of their country to pay the debts they helped create - again in cahoots with the same Wall St. banks?
1. UK examples were ones I could think of. Do tell me some Labour merchant bankers.
2. US: yes, but that's because they have a tradition of public service that we have lost.
3. Greece that I am aware of. Don't believe that there are others that have been proved. Goldman behaved very badly in Greece.
1) too big to fail banks = privatizing profits and socializing losses on an enormous scale e.g. the capital write-offs mentioned earlier
2) not having the glass-steagal type split between retail and investment means you get tbtf banks in London sucking in all the capital in the country and then either gambling with it or investing it in mega projects round the world while the rest of the country is starved of low-level investment capital
3) the grip the banksters have on the political class means they can pretty much do what they like e.g. operate as cartels scamming the entire planet in every market there is e.g.
Please can you give some evidence of a "revolving door"?
In the UK the start date is 1997 not 2010.
In the US the revolving door runs to thousands of individuals.
In the EU how many finance ministers who cooked their country's books to join the EU in cahoots with Wall St. banks then went off to join those banks coming back into govt after the crash to arrange the asset-stripping of their country to pay the debts they helped create - again in cahoots with the same Wall St. banks?
1. UK examples were ones I could think of. Do tell me some Labour merchant bankers.
2. US: yes, but that's because they have a tradition of public service that we have lost.
3. Greece that I am aware of. Don't believe that there are others that have been proved. Goldman behaved very badly in Greece.
1) too big to fail banks = privatizing profits and socializing losses on an enormous scale e.g. the capital write-offs mentioned earlier
2) not having the glass-steagal type split between retail and investment means you get tbtf banks in London sucking in all the capital in the country and then either gambling with it or investing it in mega projects round the world while the rest of the country is starved of low-level investment capital
3) the grip the banksters have on the political class means they can pretty much do what they like e.g. operate as cartels scamming the entire planet in every market there is e.g.
Comments
He's now running for Mayor of NYC, and today it emerged that he's been sexting again. He's staying in the race.
Eliot Spitzer, who resigned as NY governor over a sex scandal, is back and running for state comptroller. He has a new ad out which starts "I failed big time."
I'm not sure even New Yorkers deserve these two.
2) not having the glass-steagal type split between retail and investment means you get tbtf banks in London sucking in all the capital in the country and then either gambling with it or investing it in mega projects round the world while the rest of the country is starved of low-level investment capital
3) the grip the banksters have on the political class means they can pretty much do what they like e.g. operate as cartels scamming the entire planet in every market there is e.g.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/everything-is-rigged-vol-9-713-this-time-its-currencies-20130613
4) How many non-banksters can get away with money laundering billions and no-one even gets arrested
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2344728/Ex-HSBC-boss-oversaw-bank-laundered-money-terrorists-quits-minister-scathing-report.html
etc etc
But you haven't created a logical link between (1) and (2) and (3) and (4).
The Humanist Association of Ireland said it has been inundated by requests for secular weddings, partly due to a collapse in the standing of the Catholic Church in the wake of sex-abuse scandals and as a result of Ireland’s rapid secularisation.
There are some merchant bankers (Maude, Letwin) for example who go into politics after they have made their money - but this is through choice rather than anything else (and they are not particular senior). Given that investment banks are dependent on relationships with senior people to differentiate themselves they will often hire senior ex politicians, but these usually aren't very successful. Peter Sutherland is one of the few who really excelled in both worlds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Sutherland
In the US the revolving door runs to thousands of individuals.
In the EU how many finance ministers who cooked their country's books to join the EU in cahoots with Wall St. banks then went off to join those banks coming back into govt after the crash to arrange the asset-stripping of their country to pay the debts they helped create - again in cahoots with the same Wall St. banks?
2. US: yes, but that's because they have a tradition of public service that we have lost.
3. Greece that I am aware of. Don't believe that there are others that have been proved. Goldman behaved very badly in Greece.
2. US: yes, but that's because they have a tradition of public service that we have lost.
3. Greece that I am aware of. Don't believe that there are others that have been proved. Goldman behaved very badly in Greece.
1) too big to fail banks = privatizing profits and socializing losses on an enormous scale e.g. the capital write-offs mentioned earlier
2) not having the glass-steagal type split between retail and investment means you get tbtf banks in London sucking in all the capital in the country and then either gambling with it or investing it in mega projects round the world while the rest of the country is starved of low-level investment capital
3) the grip the banksters have on the political class means they can pretty much do what they like e.g. operate as cartels scamming the entire planet in every market there is e.g.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/everything-is-rigged-vol-9-713-this-time-its-currencies-20130613
4) How many non-banksters can get away with money laundering billions and no-one even gets arrested
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2344728/Ex-HSBC-boss-oversaw-bank-laundered-money-terrorists-quits-minister-scathing-report.html
Connecting link - banksters make a lot of money out of a rigged game and the public pays.
Question - why does the political class allow it to continue?
2) not having the glass-steagal type split between retail and investment means you get tbtf banks in London sucking in all the capital in the country and then either gambling with it or investing it in mega projects round the world while the rest of the country is starved of low-level investment capital
3) the grip the banksters have on the political class means they can pretty much do what they like e.g. operate as cartels scamming the entire planet in every market there is e.g.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/everything-is-rigged-vol-9-713-this-time-its-currencies-20130613
4) How many non-banksters can get away with money laundering billions and no-one even gets arrested
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2344728/Ex-HSBC-boss-oversaw-bank-laundered-money-terrorists-quits-minister-scathing-report.html
Connecting link - banksters make a lot of money out of a rigged game and the public pays.
Question - why does the political class allow it to continue?
That's not evidence of a grand conspiracy.
Evidence please.
Evidence please.
Why does the political class allow this rigged game to continue?
You've yet to prove there is a rigged game.
When did you stop beating your wife?
2) Why are the govt running a small investment fund if the banking system is functional?
3) Dozens of examples of the banks operating as a cartel and yet no action.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/everything-is-rigged-vol-9-713-this-time-its-currencies-20130613
4) Money-laundering with no arrests
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2344728/Ex-HSBC-boss-oversaw-bank-laundered-money-terrorists-quits-minister-scathing-report.html
All evidence that the game is rigged.