City's influence over Conservatives laid bare by research into donations

[Tony]

No excuses. The internet is awash with very simple explanations of the banking crisis. Go and take a look. And then come back and explain why you think the banks aren't a problem.[/url]

 

There's plenty more on the internet if you could be bothered to look.

You seem to have developed a very special sort of deaf/blind syndrome.

1. don't change the subject - I never said that banks weren't a problem.

2. Bad things don't just happen. They are a product of something.

 

 

So for the fourth time, stay on topic and tell us how do you think (or not) that banks are more powerful than governments, lawmakers and policy setters?

[I1L2T3]

which planet do you live on ???

they pose no threat, the unions are trying to bankrupt the country with strikes as we speak, in fact they are desperate to get the labout gravy train back into power , they dont want reform, in fact thanks to unions they have just secured a £1800 yes one thousand eight hundred pound deal per person for london tube drivers NOT to strike during the olympics.

 

answer one question, did you bring up the conflict of intrest about labour and the unions donations when they were in power ???

 

The TUC does not pose a multi-trillion dollar threat to the global economy. As much as you would like it to it doesn't :hihi::hihi:

 

Nice try

[bigsexydoug]

Sorry, the unions did not cause the credit crunch. The Bankers did.

who was in charge of regulating them banks ???

[I1L2T3]

you seem to have developed a very special sort of deaf/blind syndrome. Bad things don't just happen. They are a product of something.

 

So for the fourth time, how do you think (or not) that banks are more powerful than governments, lawmakers and policy setters?

 

I see, you are asking a specific question. Yes in certain ways they are more powerful.

 

For example, banks operate in a globalised environment but governments, law makers and policy settlers (whatever they are) do not.

 

You could say that the banking crisis was attributable to a failure of regulation but to regulate a globalised industry you need a global regulatory effort. There was nothing in place to do that in 2007. And there still isn't anything in place. There is no effective mechanism to do it.

 

Britian could have regulated but it still would not insulate us from the crisis. It would not have helped much. As a global industry the trades would move away from London to a country with a more favourable regulatory regime. The trades would continue. The over-leverage would continue. And a global crisis in the banking industry would still have caused severe problems in Britain.

 

So, my view is you have a globalised industry that does not want to be regulated. It has strong political influence in nearly every country. It has the power to influence legislation in any one country and by extension the power to prevent a global regulatory effort of its activities.

[I1L2T3]

who was in charge of regulating them banks ???

 

Nobody in effect. See my post above.

[Tony]

How do governments not work globally?

 

From the G7 to coalition wars in the Middle East, that excuse seems to be completely invalid.

[I1L2T3]

How do governments not work globally?

 

From the G7 to coalition wars in the Middle East, that excuse seems to be completely invalid.

 

Simple answer - we do not have a global government.

[Tony]

We do not have a global bank.

[I1L2T3]

We do not have a global bank.

 

Well we kind of do, e.g. The Bank of International Settlements, The World Bank.

 

The BIS runs the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision which formulates capital and liquidity rules that banks should follow. But it's ineffective - the Basel II rules did not prevent the recent crisis and the Basel III rules due to be implemented over the coming decade are fiercely resisted by the banks. Nor do the rules do not cover the shadow banking sector which has operated almost free of regulatory control since the 1980s. The Basel accords are not effective regulatory/supervisory mechanisms - there is no track record of them preventing crisis and with limited bank buy-in plus an unregulated shadow banks limited chance of crisis being averted again.

[Tony]

You're living up to your avatar there - weasel words. There is no global bank, no global bank standard, no global bank cabal.

 

Who writes the rules for banks?