Stan Tamudo Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Yes, because Labour were so reliant on the financial sector. What do you think paid for all their increased public spending during the so-called boom years? Sadly they're just another bunch of Tories who look after their chums in the City. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Yes, because Labour were so reliant on the financial sector. Absolutely. Like all the main parties. The Labour government had a gun held to its head. Major banks were telling them that ATMs would be shut down within days. But Labour did have choices and the main one was to fully nationalise the banks there and then. The problem with that was nationalisation of the banks had been a clarion call of the left in the 70s, indeed of some prominent Labour members in their earlier political careers who had since tried to detach from that. How could they take such drastic seemingly very left wing action and still claim to have moved into the centre of the political spectrum? They made the wrong choices for the wrong reasons. Worse still, when they did part-nationalise some of the major banks the terms were far from punative and loaded in favour of the banks to such an extent that the part-nationalised banks were even able to carry on much as before. The bonus culture has continued unchecked. Banks are still taking serious risks. And the whole thing was backstopped with hundreds of billions of pounds of taxpayer money. The banks should not have been allowed to fail. They should have been taken under state control for a limited time, broken up and then freed from state control to operate under a radically different model based on strict separation of retail and investment banking, with an emphasis on economically beneficial rather than economically destructive activities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Probably the same effect as bailing them out to be honest, the people lose money or the government loses money and the government's money comes from the people. However the markets would mean the banks would have to reassess how much risk they take with their customer's money. As it is they don't care as they'll get bailed out. it took a while for you to get there but in the end you did well done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertramp Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Absolutely. Like all the main parties. The Labour government had a gun held to its head. Major banks were telling them that ATMs would be shut down within days. But Labour did have choices and the main one was to fully nationalise the banks there and then. The problem with that was nationalisation of the banks had been a clarion call of the left in the 70s, indeed of some prominent Labour members in their earlier political careers who had since tried to detach from that. How could they take such drastic seemingly very left wing action and still claim to have moved into the centre of the political spectrum? They made the wrong choices for the wrong reasons. Worse still, when they did part-nationalise some of the major banks the terms were far from punative and loaded in favour of the banks to such an extent that the part-nationalised banks were even able to carry on much as before. The bonus culture has ceeeeontinued unchecked. Banks are still taking serious risks. And the whole thing was backstopped with hundreds of billions of pounds of taxpayer money. The banks should not have been allowed to fail. They should have been taken under state control for a limited time, broken up and then freed from state control to operate under a radically different model based on strict separation of retail and investment banking, with an emphasis on economically beneficial rather than economically destructive activities. I still think it would have been better to let the banks fail. It is pretty much the only way to regulate them. A proper free market will regulate itself, the government (any governmen) has never run anything successfully so state controlled banks are just a recipe for failure. ---------- Post added 24-03-2013 at 07:23 ---------- it took a while for you to get there but in the end you did well done Always been here sunshine. Its toy who is a mixed up socialist free market confused stalker. And you forgot a smiley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Always been here sunshine. Its toy who is a mixed up socialist free market confused stalker. And you forgot a smiley. yes you got me confused with this statement allright ( heres the smilie) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 I still think it would have been better to let the banks fail. It is pretty much the only way to regulate them. A proper free market will regulate itself, the government (any governmen) has never run anything successfully so state controlled banks are just a recipe for failure. ---------- Post added 24-03-2013 at 07:23 ---------- Always been here sunshine. Its toy who is a mixed up socialist free market confused stalker. And you forgot a smiley. Problem is Supertramp it was the operation of the free market - and in particular in America that caused the whole deck of cards tumbling down. Even Alan Greenspan who was at the Federal Reserve Chairman from 1988 - 2006 admitted that the financial crash of 2008 exposed a 'mistake' in the free markey ideology http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/24/economics-creditcrunch-federal-reserve-greenspan If anyone is confused about the origins of the crash and wants a compelling but easy to understand guide try the Oscar winning documentary 'Inside Job': http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1645089/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchemist Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Problem is Supertramp it was the operation of the free market - and in particular in America that caused the whole deck of cards tumbling down. Even Alan Greenspan who was at the Federal Reserve Chairman from 1988 - 2006 admitted that the financial crash of 2008 exposed a 'mistake' in the free markey ideology http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/24/economics-creditcrunch-federal-reserve-greenspan If anyone is confused about the origins of the crash and wants a compelling but easy to understand guide try the Oscar winning documentary 'Inside Job': http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1645089/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_1 So, despite the obsession by the tories for blaming labour it WASNT labours fault then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 So, despite the obsession by the tories for blaming labour it WASNT labours fault then? I think what I'm saying Alchemist is that in spite of whoever was in power at the time the financial crash would have affected us - like it's impacted on every other country in the world. We know that the Eurozone crisis is impacting on this country now, are you really saying that the current UK govt is responsible for that? Its a what if question that if there wasn't the 'big bang' (financial deregulation) in 1987 and the spawning of financial products and companies thereafter. Or had the Tories remained in power would they have resisted calls from the financial sector further financial deregulation? Would there have been an unsustainable housing bubble? One can only speculate as to why an archetypal free marketeer like the Head of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan should issue his mea culpa. What is clear though - that in the UK and well as the US there has been a change of paradigm in the thinking that guides policy (as there was in the late 1970s). Although it hasn't been explicitly stated, much of what the chancellor has said has led some to conclude that neo liberal philosophy as pursued as in the last 35 years has to change. Change to what I don't know. That's what makes it interesting. I would urge you to see the documentary 'Inside Job', it's a real eye opener! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenRivers Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Problem is Supertramp it was the operation of the free market - and in particular in America that caused the whole deck of cards tumbling down. Even Alan Greenspan who was at the Federal Reserve Chairman from 1988 - 2006 admitted that the financial crash of 2008 exposed a 'mistake' in the free markey ideology http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/24/economics-creditcrunch-federal-reserve-greenspan If anyone is confused about the origins of the crash and wants a compelling but easy to understand guide try the Oscar winning documentary 'Inside Job': http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1645089/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_1 I generally like the free market model for the many benefits it gives us, but not unabated, because the greed of the few operating the market holding all the cards and with all the power to shape the market will always win out against the intersts of the masses, so free markets with much heavier regulation is the way forward imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie_boy Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 No-one working in the public sector is 'living hand to mouth'. Private sector workers are the ones who are struggling, and even they aren't 'living hand to mouth'. What a stupid comment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.