Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

"the UK is finished"

Very interesting piece of news on on Paul Mason's blog posting that I wasn't aware of. Perhaps he will have more to say on this on Newsnight tonight. Says in 2005 Tony Blair was pressing the FSA to reduce their regulatory role even more than they had already done. Extraordinary that such high level pressure was being placed to make a lax regime even slacker.

'Shortly after Labour's 2005 election win I was summoned to a speech by Tony Blair, hosted by the IPPR. It was entitled Risk and the State and naturally induced as much anticipation as a crown green bowling telethon. However, halfway through I realised Blair had said something that sounded calculatedly outrageous: that the Financial Services Authority was "seen as hugely inhibiting of efficient business by perfectly respectable companies that have never defrauded anyone". The implication was that finance was over-regulated, the FSA over-heavy...This is the same FSA that has, implicitly, been drubbed by its new boss, Adair Turner, for its failure to adequately monitor the financial system as it careered out of control in the first half of this decade. At the time, the then boss of the FSA wrote a furious letter to Blair, accusing him of undermining the FSA's role. Had not the FSA been at the forefront of the drive for light-touch regulation in Europe, McCarthy complained, and now it was being dissed as heavy handed. We don't know how the spat ended because Tony Blair's reply to this letter has been suppressed under the Freedom of Information laws. What we do know is that the FSA was under political pressure from the Labour government to be even more hands-off than it already was.'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/paulmason/2009/01/shortly_after_labours_2005_ele.html

As it happens, there was a radio interview on the bank bail outs with the very same Lord Turner on Radio 4 this morning:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7844000/7844151.stm

Peston is most insistent that complete nationalisation of the banks isn't on the cards (at least at this point in time):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2009/01/insurance_not_nationalisation.html
 
Firstly, he hasn't pretended they were his own words - he clearly indicated that they were quotes by the use of quotation marks. Secondly, you have the wrong source, it's from the business section of the Times - a link included in the OP. Your link is the actual C&P - and it even sources it to the exact same Times article as Durruti so people don't get confused. So accusations of dishonesty are a little off when you're the one who has made the mistake.

:D
 
In terms of the welfare state, (which is the finest legacy the generations of 1914-1945 beqeathed to future ones), many historians basically concur it was pressure from below coupled acceptance of the need for change from some of the elites who saw the devastation of the WW's and the Great Depression and said 'never again'. McMillan had fought in WW1 and according to his biographers, was scarred by those experiences, but of course, the rise of the left and social movements, meant pressure from below was intense, groups like the CP led National Unemployed Workers Movement was extremely active in the Thirties with many of its activists becoming M.P's, academics, etc.
 
As regards the general political environment: I'm convinced that it is the presence of political parties that is killing democracy in this country. It creates tribalism and substitutes loyalty for thought.

Imagine a democracy with no political parties at all. You would have to make the effort to really understand what your prospective representatives thought about issues. That means far more penetrating questions and understanding of political issues would be necessary before you knew who you would vote for. And it would mean that candidates would really have to make a case why we should vote for them, specifically.

And when those representatives went to the House, they would have to take a stance on an issue based on what they really believed in rather than being told to be pro- or anti- something just because that is the party line.

Ban political parties now. They do nothing but get in the way of democracy.
 
Roubini Predicts U.S. Losses May Reach $3.6 Trillion

U.S. financial losses from the credit crisis may reach $3.6 trillion, suggesting the banking system is “effectively insolvent,” said New York University Professor Nouriel Roubini, who predicted last year’s economic crisis.

“I’ve found that credit losses could peak at a level of $3.6 trillion for U.S. institutions, half of them by banks and broker dealers,” Roubini said at a conference in Dubai today. “If that’s true, it means the U.S. banking system is effectively insolvent because it starts with a capital of $1.4 trillion. This is a systemic banking crisis.”

Losses and writedowns at financial companies worldwide have risen to more than $1 trillion since the U.S. subprime mortgage market collapsed in 2007, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

President Barack Obama will have to use as much as $1 trillion of public funds to shore up the capitalization of the banking sector, following the $350 billion injection by the Bush administration, Roubini told Bloomberg News. Congress last year approved a $700 billion rescue fund, of which half remains to be disbursed.

Bank of America Corp., the largest U.S. bank by assets, posted a quarterly loss of $1.79 billion last week, its first since 1991, and received $138 billion in emergency government funds. Citigroup Inc. posted an $8.29 billion fourth-quarter loss, completing its worst year, and plans to split in two under Chief Executive Officer Vikram Pandit’s plan to rebuild a capital base eroded by the credit crisis.

‘Bankrupt’ System

“The problems of Citi, Bank of America and others suggest the system is bankrupt,” Roubini said. “In Europe, it’s the same thing.”

Stocks in Europe, Canada and Brazil dropped yesterday on speculation government efforts to shore up the financial industry will fail to stem the deepening global recession. The U.K.’s Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc said it expects to post a loss of as much as 28 billion pounds ($41 billion) for 2008 and the government got ready to raise its stake in the lender.

Oil prices will trade between $30 and $40 a barrel all year, Roubini predicted.

“I see commodities falling overall another 15-20 percent,” Roubini said. “This outlook for commodity prices is beneficial for oil importers, it’s going to imply that economic recovery might occur faster, but from the point of view of oil exporters, this will be very negative.”

Oil has tumbled 77 percent from its July high of $147.27 as the global economy sinks into recession, straining the budgets of crude exporters. Saudi Arabia, Oman and Dubai, the second- largest sheikdom in the United Arab Emirates, have said they will post budget deficits this year.

Crude oil for February delivery fell to $32.70, down 10.4 percent from last week’s close and the lowest since Dec. 19, on the New York Mercantile Exchange today. The contract traded at $33.37 a barrel at 10:45 a.m. London time.
 
As regards the general political environment: I'm convinced that it is the presence of political parties that is killing democracy in this country. It creates tribalism and substitutes loyalty for thought.

Imagine a democracy with no political parties at all. You would have to make the effort to really understand what your prospective representatives thought about issues. That means far more penetrating questions and understanding of political issues would be necessary before you knew who you would vote for. And it would mean that candidates would really have to make a case why we should vote for them, specifically.

And when those representatives went to the House, they would have to take a stance on an issue based on what they really believed in rather than being told to be pro- or anti- something just because that is the party line.

Ban political parties now. They do nothing but get in the way of democracy.

New thread for this here: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=277762

Think it deserves one, as it's a quite seperate issue to the UK economy.
 
Nouriel Roubini made a whistle-stop visit to London yesterday. Not sure who he met, but he says that

"The UK is not Iceland but is as bad as the US as far as an economic and financial crisis goes..so it is pretty ugly and fugly and fuglier.."

I am sure he will elaborate more on his rgemonitor blog later.

http://twitter.com/nouriel
 
Nouriel Roubini made a whistle-stop visit to London yesterday. Not sure who he met, but he says that



http://twitter.com/nouriel

Aha it seems there is a video interview with Dr Doom on Stephanie's blog that I just linked to. I havent had time to watch it yet as I have to go to work for 3 whole hours now (Im on short-time, the credit crunch is eating my employer)
 
If the banking crisis continues, i suspect we really will see a run on the banks like in Argentian, etc, people will just take their money out of their accounts. I am definitely wondering where to put my paltry but crucial savings.
 
Brad Setser from the CFR discusses the UK and it's currency drop here.

http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2009/01/22/trouble-in-tokyo-and-in-london/

It's not all doom and gloom I think. The upside of a weaker £ is it will make our exports more attractive and affordable abroad and tourism is going to go up. So the UK will need to start growing and making and mending a lot more things again. A re-birth of British agriculture, manufacturing and trade skills! The one positive area of growth last quarter was in agriculture and food.

There has been good signs of tourism increases over the winter in Scotland due to the £/Euro parity, and tourism in Scotland is likely to be buoyant due to the Burns anniversary celebrations and the 'Homecoming' promotion. That will have benefits for the rest of the country as people visiting Scotland, will often take a hop down to England while they here as well.
 
Yes there is some truth in that, there is an upside, though I doubt it will compensate too much for the downside.

I suppose weaker sterling is also going to make many temporary migrants, who are sending money home, think twice about whether it is worth working here.

Meanwhile here are a series of headlines from the FT at the moment:

Hopes dashed for swift UK recovery
Economy’s sharpest fall in 28 years
Editorial Comment: British bruising
Analysis: Recession Britain – All washed up
Lex UK economy Video: UK set for a deep recession
UK will not go bust but times will be hard
Sterling plunges to record lows
 
Will Hutton in today's Observer:

The fact that you are reading this newspaper suggests you are pretty concerned about the country you're living in. The economic news gets unrelentingly worse. The government's attempts on Monday to help the banking system further went down spectacularly badly. The pound has fallen another 6% in just five days. Unemployment rose by nearly 80,000 in December. And after figures showing a 1.5% decline in output in the last three months of 2008, economists are talking about a depression rather than recession. It is not good.

You are right to be worried. Right to be incandescent about the arrogant financial bosses who got us into this mess. And right to be angry about the politicians, regulators and right-wing intellectuals who indulged the whole process with their worship of the canons of free market fundamentalism.

Remain balanced. There is a lot of economic pain ahead and many risks - we could yet see wholesale nationalisation of the banks and Britain being forced to negotiate a jumbo international loan before the story is over - but already powerful forces that will reverse the decline are being unleashed. We can expect GDP to fall by at least 5% over two years, the average depth and length of recessions caused by financial crises, according to the IMF. But ultra-low interest rates, the biggest devaluation for a century, the government's willingness to underwrite the banking system, reflate and print money will avert a full-blooded depression.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/25/economic-policy-gordon-brown
 
Out of interest, why are they "nutters"?

Well they probably get some stuff right, I refer disparagingly to them because I feel they are fundamentalists who think individualism and free markets will save us. I probably dont have a full understanding of their beliefs and ideas though. I just know that when I read such stuff, it makes me slap my forehead and sigh.

If you want a form of decentralised capitalism, they might be on to something. But just as with libertarianism, I am suspicious of whether this stuff is most appealing to those who have some power through capital, and dont like other powerful forces getting in their way.
 
There's quite an interesting interview here with David Harvey where he's arguing that what neo-liberalism set out to do, restore the growth of capital accumulation in general in the face of the post-WW2 working class gains, actually never worked terribly well. What it turned out to be great at though was making elites much richer, which is why we still have neo-liberal govt's.

SL: You write that neoliberalism play two roles: either to restore high rates of profitability for capitalism or to restore the power of the capitalist ruling class. Explain that distinction for us and why they don't necessarily go together.

DH: The first burst of neoliberalization in the 1970s and early 1980s occurred in a situation of very low rates of capital accumulation, and therefore the general argument was made that we need to change the way the economy is organized in order to get growth back on track. That was the general argument that was made. Now, the difficulty was, that actually the first part of the Reagan administration was in serious economic crisis, Margaret Thatcher didn't do very well in terms of transforming the economy there, and as I mentioned in the Chilean case, things didn't work out too well in Chile either by the time you get to the early 1980s. Neoliberalism was not doing very well in its pure form, in terms of regenerating capital accumulation, but what it was doing very well was redistributing wealth towards the upper classes. You see in all of the data now, that from the late 1970s onwards, those countries that turned towards neoliberalization actually achieved tremendous increases in the wealth of the elites. In this country, for example, the top one percent tripled its share of the national income from about 1970 to say 2000. And of course it's doing even better now under the tax rules that the Bush administration is implementing. Mexico was another case where in a short period after neoliberalization, suddenly fourteen or so people appeared on the Forbes billionaires list globally -- suddenly billionaires erupted in Mexico. The market shock therapy that was given to Russia after the collapse of the wall ended up with seven oligarchs controlling about 50 percent of the economy. So wherever neoliberalization moves, you see this tremendous concentration of wealth and power occurring in the top echelons. It actually occurs in the very, very top echelons -- in the 0.01 percent. For instance, there was a little piece in the New York Times the other day that said: what's happened to the four hundred richest people in this country over the past twenty years? And it turns out they were worth $600 million a piece in constant dollars back in about 1985 and they are now worth something like $2.8 billion. They have quadrupled their wealth over this period. What neoliberalization has been very good at is restoring or reconstituting class power in a very narrow band of the political economic elite.
source
 
Sentiment seems a bit better today, stock market up, currency slightly improved against the dollar. I assume a lot of it is to do with Barclays managing to convince people that they arent doomed.

If I heard right then Ken Clarke also indicated the other day that he didnt think IMF bailout was on the cards at the moment, which sort of contradicts what Dave had been saying.
 
Ok, so if the UK is finished and everyone pulls their money out. What happens to us?

Nation's credit rating downgraded. Government defaults on debt. Prints money "quantative easing". We see deflation/inflation/stagflation/hyperinflation*. Massive job losses. High unemployment. High Streets become deserted. Retail units are abandoned. Return of 3-day week. Government goes to IMF. Has to cut public spending and raise taxes. Problems with energy provision/welfare provision. Foreign concerns buy large segments of economy. Gazprom buys centrica. Rolling blackouts. Crime goes up. Problem with food distribution. People panic. Civil unrest. Government falls. Rise of authoritarian political block. Civil conflict/war.

So ... in short ... best case scenerio, we do an Iceland. Medium case scenerio, we do an Argentina. Worst case scenerio, we do a Weimer/Nazi Germany. :)

*choose your favourite 'lation' -- jury's still out on this one.

And Will Hutton doesn't know what he's talking about. He's got vested interests.
 
It is never over but the vultures are swarming - today's BBC website on the IFS grim predictions for the UK - the worse recession in Europe and beyond for us Brits - make me shudder.

Optimistically I look for any rebellion against the people who put is in this mess. Pessimistically I see a big pay freeze across the public sector - crazy I know - how can people spend money when it is frozen?

I can hear Gordon saying - we will pull through, we are all in this together, we must tighten our belts.

It will be as ever spin and more spin. FFS Gordon will not even accept any blame - where was he the last ten years?
 
Can someone tell me when it's finishing cos I've got tickets for a gig on 3rd March - ta!
 
I think saying that Britain is going to do a Weimar/ Nazi Germany is going abit too far , it won't get to that point.
 
Just to put the relationship between the actual productive global economy and the crazy stuff the financials have been doing into perspective in quantitative terms:

The total daily turnover of financial transactions in international markets which stood at $2.3 billion in 1983 had risen to $130 billion by 2001. This $40 trillion annual turnover in 2001 compares to the estimated $800 billion that would be required to support international trade and productive investment flows.

http://www.princeton.edu/~sf/workshops/neoliberalism/classrestore.pdf

Interesting ratio there. $800 billion in trade and productive investment and $40 trillion in total, the balance largely consisting of speculation using various forms of fictitious capital.

My concern is that the sheer scale of the fictitious capital involved dwarfs real productive enterprise on a global level and is almost certainly even more skewed in countries like the UK which exported most of their productive industry overseas many years ago to places with less legal protection for the workers or trade union power and have since been financialising everything in sight so that they can go on living off inwards investments from those countries that have either useful commodities or goods to export.

I don't think this model is sustainable and I don't want to see ordinary people undergo hardship while governments who work for these creeps try to keep the whole rotten ponzi scheme going.

Thing is, previously we've had a crisis followed by a recomposition, as paper claims on wealth in excess of real surplus value (and the loot from primitive accumulation) collapse through bankrupcy, revalorization and all that stuff. Then after a lot of human suffering, the system eventually sort of recalibrates itself against real wealth and starts another cycle of growth.

The capitalist class, the central bank and the capitalist state always resist this as long as possible, trying to preserve the fictitious values even if it means gutting the real economy, but in previous major crises, at the start of the 20th century and in the 30's, the real economy was still a significant factor. Increasingly, particularly in countries like the UK it's dwarfed by the hallucinations of a bunch of fucking investment bankers and for most of the neo-liberal era, the idea that you can have wealth without neccessarily going to the bother of creating any actual value has become a tacit assumption. So what I strongly suspect is going to happen when this lot comes crashing down is that the capitalist class will seek to realise those paper claims as far as possible by a process analogous to primitive accumulation. A process of orchestrated debt crisis very like what happens when the IMF forces structural adjustment on a country bankrupted by predatory elites and sets in motion a massive transfer of assets from those bankrupted, to those with credit, very often to the same elites who bankrupted them in the first place.

The trick for the capitalist state will be to manage the crisis in such a way as to maximise the transfer of assets to the capitalist class to redeem all those paper claims on wealth in excess of that actually produced, while not causing a general collapse or revolt. It's an unprecedented situation that they've created this time though, so they may very well fuck it up.
 
Back
Top Bottom