Gas and Electric Bills

[IC1967]

Do you trust the banks?

I certainly don't. We are all paying the price for Labour's love affair with them.

[Filo]

Do you trust the banks?

I certainly don't. We are all paying the price for Labour's love affair with them.

We've been through this before, it was the Tories that let the Banks off the leash by de regulation

[River Don]

The price we pay for our gas stinks, and the electric is shocking.

It's going to double at least over a relatively short period time, this nuclear deal indicates that.

I keep saying, the globe faces a serious energy crisis.

[IC1967]

We've been through this before, it was the Tories that let the Banks off the leash by de regulation

Can you explain why then in 13 years Labour didn't tighten regulation. They did the complete opposite! Please explain why Gordon Brown (not a man to ever admit to any mistakes)  admitted he made a "big mistake" over the handling of financial regulation in the run-up to the banking crisis of 2008.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13032013

To blame the Tories when they hadn't been in power for 13 years is laughable.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

Point out a serious mainstream politician or economist who, in the early-mid 2000s was screaming that what we needed was stronger banking regulation and then we can talk. Otherwise, you're doing the usual thing that bairns do, which is to throw a strop and moan that the grown-ups weren't perfect.

The big picture is that Brown and everyone else was working in a paradigm where the market was king and politicians were supposed to keep out. We NOW know that was a recipe for a colossal disaster.  Think about who brought the market-is-sacrosanct culture in.

Now, if you are complaining that New Labour was too much in thrall to the markets and not prepared to have the socialist balls to cobtrol the excesses of market and make it work for people, I fully agree with you. If you are NOT saying that, what exactly ARE you saying?

[IC1967]

Vince Cable.

He predicted the recession and warned of a housing market crash. He was in favour of light touch regulation carried out the right way (as am I). Unfortunately Gordon put the FSA in charge of the banks which is a role any fool could see they were unfit for. A colossal, unforgivable mistake which meant the banks could do as they pleased with virtually no oversight from the regulators. In the early 2000's Vince made it clear that a balance has to be struck between regulation which protected consumers and maintained market stability without becoming so onerous that it was unworkable. He said "llight-touch regulation was not at the time wrong, in principle the credit crunch has made it clear that the way this regulation was carried out was entirely inadequate."

He also warned about excessive consumer debt. In November 2003 he challenged Gordon Brown about “the brutal truth” that “the growth of the British economy is sustained by consumer spending pinned against record levels of personal debt, which is secured, if at all, against house prices that the Bank of England describes as well above equilibrium level.”

So you and Filo are far too simplistic in your statements. Light touch regulation of the banks can work if the correct regulatory framework is in place. This is where Gordon surpassed himself in financial illiteracy. He put the FSA in charge of the banks even though they were totally unsuited to the role. So no I don't agree de-regulation was the problem. The problem was the FSA.

[IC1967]

Good old Dave. He's just announced that he is going to reduce energy bills by reducing the green levies brought in by red Ed. That's a far better way to tackle the problem than to con the public over a price freeze.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

I'll say it again, because Mickv4.0 is obviously as incapable of reading as MickV1.0-3.0.

I said

Point out a serious mainstream politician or economist who, in the early-mid 2000s was screaming that what we needed was stronger banking regulation.

You give me an example of someone who said that the credit crunch made it clear that the regulatory system was unfit. Did he say that in the early-mid 2000s?

[wilts rover]

And there's me (and the rest of the world) thinking the world financial crises was the result of the crash of the American sub-prime mortgage market, when really it was the FSA all along. How silly we all look.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Wilts.

That and the unutterably cack-handed dealing of the Lehman's collapse by Bush and Hank Paulson. That is what turned a very serious problem into a once a century catastrophe.

And to think, there are still those who say that Brown should have let Northern Rock, RBS, Lloyds etc go bust. Must be nice on their planet.

[IC1967]

I'll say it again, because Mickv4.0 is obviously as incapable of reading as MickV1.0-3.0.

I said
Quote
Point out a serious mainstream politician or economist who, in the early-mid 2000s was screaming that what we needed was stronger banking regulation.

You give me an example of someone who said that the credit crunch made it clear that the regulatory system was unfit. Did he say that in the early-mid 2000s?

You need to read my post more carefully. I've got the relevant section here for you again:

In the early 2000's Vince made it clear that a balance has to be struck between regulation which protected consumers and maintained market stability without becoming so onerous that it was unworkable.

Anyway this is a moot point. There is no point in trying to offload the blame onto others. Labour were in power for 13 years. No matter what anyone else was saying they have to accept responsibility for their actions. Simple.

[IC1967]

And to think, there are still those who say that Brown should have let Northern Rock, RBS, Lloyds etc go bust.

Of course he should have let them go bust. Thats how capitalism works. They took the stupid risks they did because they knew he wouldn't let them go bust no matter how reckless they were. I'd love it if I could go into my local bookie and place some wild bets safe in the knowledge that Gordon would always bail me out if I lost.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick.

Eeh it's just like the old days int it? You say something that you are totally unable to back up, then you just keep repeating it.

I'll give you another chance. What did Cable say about banking regulation in the early/mid 2000s. Before the crash.

[IC1967]

Eeh it's just like the old days int it? You say something that you are totally unable to back up, then you just keep repeating it.

I'll give you another chance. What did Cable say about banking regulation in the early/mid 2000s. Before the crash.

I've answered this question twice now. Please read my previous posts properly and stop obfuscating.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick.

I asked you to point out who had complained about banking regulation IN THE EARLY/MID 2000s

You quoted only one thing that Cable actually said on the topic of regulation. Read what you quoted from Cable about banking regulation.

"llight-touch regulation was not at the time wrong, in principle the credit crunch has made it clear that the way this regulation was carried out was entirely inadequate."

And don't reply until you have read it and thought about it. In particular, think hard about WHEN Cable must have said that.

Now, if you have a source to justify your comment that:

In the early 2000's Vince made it clear that a balance has to be struck between regulation which protected consumers and maintained market stability without becoming so onerous that it was unworkable

then tell us where that is. As it stands, that is an unsubstantiated opinion. Presumably yours, although your track record makes me doubt it. But show us the evidence that he said this.

[wilts rover]

Not that it really matters because I am not sure why or what it is I am actually arguing about, but here are a couple more quotes from St Vince showing how he predicted the whole thing. This from his wiki page backing up Mick on how Gordon Brown started the world financial crises and totally dismissing my theory it was a world crises in which we were just minor players:

In his book The Storm, Dr Cable writes, "The trigger for the current global financial crisis was the US mortgage market and, indeed, the scale of improvident and unscrupulous lending on that side of the Atlantic dwarfs into insignificance the escapades of our own banks." In an interview about the book, Cable was asked whether he had warned about this. Cable replied, "No, I didn’t. That’s quite true." He continued, "But you’re quite right, and one of the problems of being a British MP is that you do tend to get rather parochial and I haven’t been to the States for years and years, so I wouldn’t claim to have any feel for what’s been going on there".

And this from a New Statesman interview where they discuss Vince's new found conversion to tight banking regulation and his opposition to GB's finance policies:

On the contrary, in June 1999, speaking in a Commons debate on the Financial Services and Markets Bill, Cable endorsed "the liberal market"approach to the regulation of financial services. "No one," he said, "is arguing for an increasingly severe, more onerous and dirigiste system of regulation." Any regulation, he said, should be "done on a light-touch basis".

[IC1967]

then tell us where that is. As it stands, that is an unsubstantiated opinion. Presumably yours, although your track record makes me doubt it. But show us the evidence that he said this.

You really are a distrustful soul. You're the one that keeps saying unsubstantiated things like the Tories underspent when last in government. Labour clearly disagreed with you at the time as I have already substantiated by letting people see the extract from their 1997 manifesto.

Anyway back to your pedantic point. If you check Hansard you will see I am being honest. You could also check Channel 4's FactCheck blog for further 'evidence'. Now please admit you disagreed with what was in the Labour manifesto and explain how they got it so badly wrong when you got it so totally right.

[Iberian Red]

How dull are you my friend?

[IC1967]

How dull are you my friend?

I think thats a bit harsh on Billy. He's not dull, he's just totally deluded and misguided. However, I detect he is starting to see the light.

[RedJ]

How dull are you my friend?

I think thats a bit harsh on Mick. He's not dull, he's just totally deluded and misguided.

[Keith Myath]

Unfortunately we followed the USA's way to deal with the financial meltdown, unlike Iceland who didnt bail the financial institutes and instead inprisoned the culprits. Who now have a thriving ecomomy that growing faster than USA and europe put together. They also paid off peoples loans and mortgages, for those buying properties in the boom years.

How refreshing it must be to live in a country who is prepared to do the right thing by its own Citizens and not its Finacial institutions.

I dont agree with teh once a century collapse posted earlier, we will see this 5-6-7 times in the next century each one worse than the last until the power is taken from the Financial Institutions and the spread of wealth is back to a level it was in the 1950's.

Unfortunately that will require a revolution, in the mean time we should instead put our energy into changing our gas & electric suppliers as Mr Cameron suggests because that will solve the problem. A problem started by 'Maggie's' drive to rid our seas of gas and oil in the 80's, to allow a small percentage of rich people get richer in the shorterm and all us plebs to pay ridicoulsy high fuel prices today. Which is exactly the opposite to what the Nowegians did and are now reaping the benefits.

Maybe we should be looking up instead of West when it comes to matters of our Country. We are far more alike to our Northern cousins than the Capatalist t**ts over the Atlantic.

[IC1967]

I have to agree with you Keith about how Iceland handled the financial crisis. I hope you are going to read this Billy because it would appear that 2 of your favourite economists also think bailing out banks is not the way to go:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/08/top-economists-iceland-did-it-right-everyone-else-is-doing-it-wrong.html

I particularly like the fact that they prosecuted their former prime minister. Something that should have happened to Gordon Brown.

[Keith Myath]

Which is bizarelly something that Iceland did try to do, i.e. prosecute Gordon Brown.

He is thought of as being 'part of the problem' in Iceland, and won't be forgiven for his part in their downfall, although admitedly he didnt create it.

Theres some cracking books about the Icelandic Collapse, reading them almost seems unbelievable in the real world.

PS i spend alot of time in Iceland, hence the unhealthy interest

[BillyStubbsTears]

Keith

Iceland did exactly the right thing.

For Iceland.

Iceland has roughly the population of Doncaster. It had a grossly inflated banking sector, but the collapse of those banks was never going to pose a systemic problem for the rest of the world. So yes, they were right to let them go to the wall.

Now, think what would have happened to the world's economy if a country with far, far bigger financial institutions had allowed a big financial company to go bust.

[IC1967]

Iceland did exactly the right thing.

For Iceland.

Iceland has roughly the population of Doncaster. It had a grossly inflated banking sector, but the collapse of those banks was never going to pose a systemic problem for the rest of the world. So yes, they were right to let them go to the wall.

Now, think what would have happened to the world's economy if a country with far, far bigger financial institutions had allowed a big financial company to go bust.

How do you respond to what your idols Mr Stiglitz and Krugman said then.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick.

You're asking what Krugman said about Iceland?

He wrote a post specially for you.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/krugman/2012/02/22/icelands-saga-2/

Hit the link in that post.

Next.

[Keith Myath]

I wasn't suggesting for one second it would have worked over here, purely inciting how nice it must be to live in a country that has A) the forethought 'Norway' or B) the tenacity 'Iceland' to do what the hell it wants. The damage was done here along time ago, irreperable damage that wont be solved by the present incumbent or the next, or th eone after that.

To be fair to Iceland, they did go it alone, against ALL advice from practically every finacial institute in the world, Infact our very own Goverment  tried to wash our hands and Sanction Iceland for "their" financial irregularities for choosing to go down the path they did.

If nothing else Iceland, served to show that when the time does come, and we do throw out this capatalist entrenched goverment that it is possible to against the world and come up smelling of roses (Or sulphur in Iceland's case)

Infact in much the same way as the Chicago School of Econonmics in the 1950's blooded there ideas on relatively peaceful South American countries by turning them upside down politically, finacially, and Socially. Maybe Iceland is the start of the antidote to Milton Friedman, a fresh way of thinking, enpowering larger countries with 10's , 100's or even 1000's the GDP of Iceland to take a stance against the Finacial institutions that for all intents and purpose run our goverments.

Incidentely back to the original subject matter, the same institutions that benefit from the high energy prices we will be paying year after year. Something the Icelandic people will never have to worry about, in more ways than one.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Keith

I agree with you. Iceland showed their mettle in ignoring the received wisdom at the time. (Not sure I can agree about Norway being a role model though. A country with a population no bigger than Yorkshire and enormous oil revenues bloody well ought to be able to survive owt that a mini Depression can throw at it!)

But yep, I agree that there is a need for the world to throw off the Chicago School's economic concepts. They were the ones that brought us the unfettered free markets that ended up lining the pockets of the very rich and left the rest of us to pick up the tab when it went tits up.

The Chicago School foisted a revolution on us in the late 70s/early 80s. New Labour were playing by the world rules that Friedman had set. It's time for a counter-revolution.

[IC1967]

Here you are Billy, extracts from the link I posted earlier:

Nobel prize winning economist Joe Stiglitz notes:

What Iceland did was right. It would have been wrong to burden future generations with the mistakes of the financial system.

Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman writes:

What [Iceland's recovery] demonstrated was the … case for letting creditors of private banks gone wild eat the losses.

Krugman also says:

A funny thing happened on the way to economic Armageddon: Iceland’s very desperation made conventional behavior impossible, freeing the nation to break the rules. Where everyone else bailed out the bankers and made the public pay the price, Iceland let the banks go bust and actually expanded its social safety net. Where everyone else was fixated on trying to placate international investors, Iceland imposed temporary controls on the movement of capital to give itself room to maneuver.

Krugman is right.  Letting the banks go bust – instead of perpetually bailing them out – is the right way to go.


Seems to me that they both think other countries could learn from Iceland by letting troubled banks go bust. Not quite your point of view despite your untold admiration for both economists.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

Have you ever realised that in the real world, there are more than 1 dimension?

Krugman and Stiglitz both say that Iceland dealt with their problems correctly. YOU interpret that as them saying that EVERYONE should have dealt with their problems by letting banks go bust.

But Iceland is tiny by global standards. They can do things that don't tip the rest of the world into catastrophe.

Good for them. They had the balls to realise that and tough it out. Just as Krugman and Stiglitz said they should.

That says nothing about what countries bigger than Doncaster should do. Although YOU obviously think it does.

So, come on then. As I asked earlier, what do you think would have happened if countries with larger financial sectors had allowed major financial organisations to go bust.