BBC Blog Network

User Profile

werdnaznerol

Listed below are comments made by werdnaznerol between Wednesday, 29th October 2008 and Thursday, 24th September 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Gordon Brown's monuments 10:55pm on 24 Sep 2009 #25 concur completely.

Its a horrible indication that the BBC is supporting political means. There is quite literally no business relevance in the posting, and the message it carries is merely trumpeting King Brown. Its not even dressed up in a much larger posting to try and disguise it.

sad, sad, sad.
Can governments squeeze bankers' pay? 12:03pm on 04 Sep 2009 #47, you refer back to #36, but please look at my posting #39.

all this talk about "risk", and risk management ... that's falling into the trap of losing sight of fundamentals and getting bogged down in the details.

the problem with bank profits is they are made on the basis of lending money that never existed, for which there is no capital to back up more than a tiny fraction of it. There is nothing to stop banks lending more and more to cover off any risk they might be carrying elsewhere.

Implement (actually re-implement) the strict rules on the permitted ratios (rules that were implemented post the 1930's depression, specifically to fix this very issue, but were then relaxed in the 80's to dig us out of another economic hole) and the "risk management" disciples would quickly return.

Trouble is, as per my original posting, its too late. There's too much debt to recall, without everything coming crashing down.
Can governments squeeze bankers' pay? 09:58am on 04 Sep 2009 unless I've got this incredibly wrong (and its all too easy to get bogged down in detail shmetail when looking at 'big' problems)
bankers are making excessive profits because they are allowed - they aren't restricted - in the amount of money they create (loan) relative to their actual capital. They really have a licence to print money, and therefore a licence to make as much profit as they want to 'risk' by creating loans.
ipso facto - the answer is, to implement rules around loans:capital ratios (the root cause of the excessive profiteering), and not the huge bonuses (the effect).
If it really is that simple, and I think it is, then so-called world leaders at the G20 should be ashamed at themselves for their vote-chasing proposals.
ps. more likely the problem is that they know the problem is out-of-control fractional reserve lending, but to fix that problem would require a massive amount of current lending to be stopped, and seeing as though we are all on the never-never (publicly, as well as privately) it would be the same as admitting that the capitalist dream has now reached the nightmare stage.
What RBS's results say about QE 00:50am on 14 Aug 2009 #302 - "Yes, yes, I know, nobody forced anyone to spend/borrow money, but it is your mother and the Government's job to protect us from our worst excesses........."
I don't get you, please tell me you were being tongue-in-cheek.
The Government's job is to protect US from your excesses, not YOU.

Or would you like them to sanction everything you buy from now on, over a limit of say £20? Because they'll happily do that in the future, if you let them.
What RBS's results say about QE 6:01pm on 13 Aug 2009 #290 "Actually I think you will find that there is a much larger picture here than you see"
Please let me just point out I DO see a much larger picture!
I was simply responding to a single philosophical point, as to whether usury (interest on loans) is an evil.
That seems to be the trouble with going back to fundamentals - someone then dives in to overlay another prevailing evil (in your case, capitalisism and the fact it comprises a winner and a loser), as if that somehow proves the fundamental is wrong. It doesn't.
What RBS's results say about QE 1:55pm on 13 Aug 2009 #272 – "Why are we so reliant upon usurers in the first place?"
Well one answer, and I hope not seen as glib, is that we all want to live in well constructed houses and not the mud huts that our ancestors did. In other words, we want to have today something that costs more value (of whatever nature) than we have in our pocket – and for which its reasonable to say that the long-lasting value of a good roof over your head can be paid back over a period of time. It is also reasonable to expect to have to pay a fee for that credit, otherwise why would anyone bother to do it for you. Surely there is nothing wrong with the fundamental concept of "credit" – what is wrong though (in my opinion) is the use of credit where the value of the purchase is only instant or negated over a (much) shorter period of time than the credit.
Then, in keeping with many other postings in this thread, we are back to the assessment of risk – is the person receiving the credit got a cat’s chance of paying back over the course of the credit, and if they don’t will the prevailing value of the thing bought cover the outstanding credit amount.
Around 20 years ago I recall applying for a loan, and having to state what I was purchasing (a car). Whilst I don’t think it explicitly stated anything on the form, I would have expected that an application for a loan to go on a 2 week holiday would have been rejected. Up until recently (and maybe even now) I imagine I could have borrowed a lot more money than a 2 week holiday would cost, literally no questions asked.
More fool those that did, and more fool those that lent to them. And more fool me for being one of the mugs now paying for them both.
Why bankers aren't worth it 6:07pm on 03 Jul 2009 When the future's architected
by a carnival of idiots on show
you'd better lie low

Was a long and dark December
when the banks became cathedrals
and the fog
became God

Coldplay, "Violet Hill"

how poignant a lyric ...
Five-year taxpayer help for banks 1:45pm on 16 Dec 2008 omg this latest posting from Robert has been here for the whole MORNING and we have yet to be

DELIGHTED BY seemingly random USE of capitals BY THE POSTER alexandercurzon

WE DO ALL HOPE YOU ARE OK alex

AND NOT SICK

(unlike the economy of course)
How will the Chancellor repay debt? 10:44pm on 29 Oct 2008 #46 - "They no longer have any credibility and are just introducing short-term measures to try and save their skins. It doesn't wash with me, or with the electorate"

I agree (ref my earlier comment #3), but I have a horrible feeling that whilst this may not wash with you, it may well wash with the vast majority of people eligible to vote.

I'm not being demeaning to the public by saying this. But:

* the real reason for the mess we are in
* the current events and why they are happening (eg CDS, carry trade)
* the sheer inter-related complexity of the global economy and associated financial mechanisms that have been built upon and over it
* the previous historic economics events/disasters, how they came about, how they were addressed, what lessons might be learnt (e.g. Great Depression, japanese crisis)
* the reality of economics being an art and not a science

c'mon, this is difficult stuff and I just don't think the level of common understanding in the street is capable of ever being raised to the required level to have this rationally debated and therefore criticised.

Plus - and the common point I think we both agree on - we live in short-term world. The press are already bored. The public are too. Until the next disastrous turn of events, that is. It won't be long .. but I fear we have several more progressively worsening (and costly) events to go through before we reach either a sufficient outcry of public anger, or the vote of no confidence in Parliament, or even both. I guess the latter is the most palatable – and the most British.
How will the Chancellor repay debt? 6:23pm on 29 Oct 2008 with absolutely everyone taking a short-term view - and expecting a quick fix (because lets face it, the public and the media are all bored of this story now, downturn? recession?? depression .. yada yada yada).

the government are desperate to hold off the inevitable bad, nay terrible news that we are spent out and we just cannot go on as we stand. So they will just keep everything looking 'ok' and hope no-one notices the black shadow lurking around the corner.

So its all going to be short-term.

that applies to the UK economy.
and to the value of sterling.
and to the delay of the real kick-in of the recession.

but also to the day when Labour are kicked out.

I wonder if the conservatives can save the day again, like they did the last time - or if we are all just so short-term now that if they haven't sorted out the UTTER MESS by tea-time that we will be baying for their blood too.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

werdnaznerol