The Autism Spiral? (obligatory loluk thread)

[Lallante]

NBS that everyone supports the "AND A FREE PONY" option....

[Pattern]

Tory demand for an Osborne apology is growing
Tory MP Andrea Leadsom says the Chancellor "should apologise" for his attack on Balls.
BY GEORGE EATON PUBLISHED 10 JULY 2012 9:11



Chancellor George Osborne is facing calls to apologise to Ed Balls. Photograph: Getty Images.
The increasingly impressive Conservative MP Andrea Leadsom won't have done her career prospects any good with her call for George Osborne to "apologise" to Ed Balls but she has won the respect of Labour MPs as well as a sizeable number of Tories.

Asked by Radio 4's The World Tonight whether Osborne should apologise to Balls after Bank of England deputy governor Paul Tucker said no ministers asked him to "lean on" Barclays over Libor rates, Leadsom said:

Yes I do. I mean I think obviously he made a mistake and I think he should apologise.
She added:

I think it was a very valid discussion at the time about who knew what and that's now been completely squashed by Paul Tucker and that is a valid conversation to have had, and now at a personal level he probably would want to apologise.
But Osborne and his aides are refusing to back down. A friend of the Chancellor tells the Telegraph's James Kirkup that Osborne's suggestion was never that Labour ministers had lent on the Bank of England, rather that they had influenced the banks directly. That may or may not be the case, but one notes that Osborne has yet to supply any evidence to support his account. Nor has he even laid out the alleged "questions" Balls needs to answer. As one Tory MP observed last week, "Before we went into the chamber on Thursday, George's people were saying 'Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. George is going to get Ed Balls'. They were indicating that there was a silver bullet that was going to kill him. It was never fired.

Challenged on the Today programme to defend Osborne, William Hague insisted that "there remain questions to answer" and that there was "no reason" for him to apologise. But as the Foreign Secretary's voice quivered one could tell his heart wasn't in it. Osborne's dramatic assertion that Labour ministers were "clearly involved" in the rate-rigging scandal has become the banal claim that they have "questions" to answer at the forthcoming parliamentary inquiry. Whether or not the Chancellor apologises, he has blinked first in this duel.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/po...pology-growing


Also, another interesting graph from my once montly trip to the NS:

[elmicker]

Barclays chairman got torn to bits by treasury select, made for marvellous TV. Looks like they're going to take a serious crack at acting as a strong investigatory body. I'd love for them to prove everyone wrong and actually successfully manage this investigation, I don't think they'll do it, as aside from all the political issues, MPs simply don't have enough time to rigorously investigate an issue and industry this complex, but strong, independent committees are something that would really improve our political process. Given a big enough full time, professional staff of barristers and advisors, they could maybe do it (and Osborne's committed to giving them that), but I really think they won't manage it. Pity.

[Pattern]

Are witnesses under oath and do they have QC's advising the PM's as promised?

TBH, i'm more hoping a few perjurer themselves prior to the fraud prosecution, an investigation that may actually have consequences people thrown into jail.

[Lallante]

Are witnesses under oath and do they have QC's advising the PM's as promised?

TBH, i'm more hoping a few purger themselves prior to the fraud prosecution, an investigation that may actually have consequences people thrown into jail.

TBH, i'm more hoping a few purger themselves prior to the fraud prosecution

purger

Witnesses vomitting from the stand? I'd watch that.

[Pattern]

purger

Derp.

[Liare]

I agree that his solution is pretty radical, but he actually explains in one of the other interviews linked (I think the podcast) that the debt jubilee isn't the only thing he thinks needs to be done. He also wants to take away the banks ability afterwards to generate unlimited money through debt-selling. So it isn't, like you seem to imply, that he says: debt jubilee and then everything going to be fixed. There's a bit more to it than that (although a 10 minute interview on TV is a bit short to detail it all).

Looked at it slightly differently, his debt jubilee is also in the direction of a stimulus for the people, i.e. big government expenditures not to the bank, but too the people directly. In the Krugman case this puts money on the table for the lower and middle classes, who will then, hopefully, use that to pay off their debt. The difference with the debt jubilee is that the debt jubilee is far more explicit (and radical) in that it forces this to happen, and does so much faster. So it is also aimed directly (as opposed to indirectly) at private debt.

Now, to make this clear, I personally don't stand that much to gain from the debt jubilee as proposed. I don't have hardly any debt myself, so I would be getting a relatively small cash bonus instead. That sounds nice, but actually, those deep in debt have been getting a benefit from going into debt (bought a house they can't afford), and now they get debt relief as well. Compared to that, my cash bonus isn't that interesting.

On the other hand, something needs to be done about debt, and the financialisation of the economy has to be reversed. Austerity is never going to do that. Stimulus through banks is going to make the process of deleveraging take many years still, while, along the way, the chance of more massive busts still there. Massive government expenditures without tackling debt means a massive debt burden for future generations, and still doesn't tackle the massive bank problems. At least Keen's plans tackle the core of the problem: massive private debt. And that's quite attractive, even if it is radical.

Although, practically, I agree: politically this is never going to fly. At least yet.

But, you know, the thing is, these problems haven't bottomed out yet. Things are pretty dire in Greece, and getting there in other countries. But what will happen if it gets worse still? Is social cohesion in Greece still the reality? How long will Spain stick together with 25% youth unemployment? And Europe, historically, is not that unfamiliar with sometimes opting for radical solutions to economic problems ...

in the long run however, even imposing restrictions on banks and their money generation ability, all you are really doing is trading one corrupt cesspit for another.

so instead of anger directed at banks for manipulating the markets for their own gain :lollibor: style you got corrupt politicians manipulating the money supply for their own gain.

unless of course you get the central bank staff out of your existing banks, but that's just a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" situation that nobody is going to be satisfied with, and that's unlikely to work in the long run anyway. (pro tip, we do that already)

Lallante : less trolling, more solutions then ?

[Bartholomeus Crane]

I agree that his solution is pretty radical, but he actually explains in one of the other interviews linked (I think the podcast) that the debt jubilee isn't the only thing he thinks needs to be done. He also wants to take away the banks ability afterwards to generate unlimited money through debt-selling. So it isn't, like you seem to imply, that he says: debt jubilee and then everything going to be fixed. There's a bit more to it than that (although a 10 minute interview on TV is a bit short to detail it all).

Looked at it slightly differently, his debt jubilee is also in the direction of a stimulus for the people, i.e. big government expenditures not to the bank, but too the people directly. In the Krugman case this puts money on the table for the lower and middle classes, who will then, hopefully, use that to pay off their debt. The difference with the debt jubilee is that the debt jubilee is far more explicit (and radical) in that it forces this to happen, and does so much faster. So it is also aimed directly (as opposed to indirectly) at private debt.

Now, to make this clear, I personally don't stand that much to gain from the debt jubilee as proposed. I don't have hardly any debt myself, so I would be getting a relatively small cash bonus instead. That sounds nice, but actually, those deep in debt have been getting a benefit from going into debt (bought a house they can't afford), and now they get debt relief as well. Compared to that, my cash bonus isn't that interesting.

On the other hand, something needs to be done about debt, and the financialisation of the economy has to be reversed. Austerity is never going to do that. Stimulus through banks is going to make the process of deleveraging take many years still, while, along the way, the chance of more massive busts still there. Massive government expenditures without tackling debt means a massive debt burden for future generations, and still doesn't tackle the massive bank problems. At least Keen's plans tackle the core of the problem: massive private debt. And that's quite attractive, even if it is radical.

Although, practically, I agree: politically this is never going to fly. At least yet.

But, you know, the thing is, these problems haven't bottomed out yet. Things are pretty dire in Greece, and getting there in other countries. But what will happen if it gets worse still? Is social cohesion in Greece still the reality? How long will Spain stick together with 25% youth unemployment? And Europe, historically, is not that unfamiliar with sometimes opting for radical solutions to economic problems ...

in the long run however, even imposing restrictions on banks and their money generation ability, all you are really doing is trading one corrupt cesspit for another.

so instead of anger directed at banks for manipulating the markets for their own gain :lollibor: style you got corrupt politicians manipulating the money supply for their own gain.

unless of course you get the central bank staff out of your existing banks, but that's just a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" situation that nobody is going to be satisfied with, and that's unlikely to work in the long run anyway. (pro tip, we do that already)

Lallante : less trolling, more solutions then ?

How is that not the same as saying: "Any regulation the people could possibly come up with is bound to fail"?

My point is, that for quite a long time in the previous century, the financial and banking sectors were quite well regulated, and that resulted in a fairly stable economic system. Regulation and oversight worked fine then. Why would it not be able to work again?

And that is a different question as: will we be able to get those regulations and regulators in the current environment? Given the level of corruption and the amount of vested interest, particularly in the political system, it may take some pretty radical shifts to get to get there. Maybe even impossible.

But that doesn't mean that it is also impossible to regulate the system.

[Nicholai Pestot]

How is that not the same as saying: "Any regulation the people could possibly come up with is bound to fail"?

Any regulation anyone could possibly come up with is bound to fail. Humans are the masters of learning the patterns and intricacies of a system and then learning how to break those systems to their own advantage, it is simply a matter of time; time modified by the intelligence of the people trying to break the system. The exorbitant wages in the financial sector have ensured that a vast number of the best and brightest have been attracted to it for the last 30 years. For every so called expert government regulator you will have a hundred real experts trying to twist and break what has been setup.

The best, smartest and most experienced in the financial world are not going to be involved in producing any new effective regulation. They will be doing everything they can to wring out every last bit of profit possible as they break it. The most successfully and best connected are probably doing their best to break anything that may be embryonically forming, even as I type this (ie - ensuring ineffective regulation).

No, I don't know the solution. I wont even pretend to.

[Lallante]

How is that not the same as saying: "Any regulation the people could possibly come up with is bound to fail"?

Any regulation anyone could possibly come up with is bound to fail. Humans are the masters of learning the patterns and intricacies of a system and then learning how to break those systems to their own advantage, it is simply a matter of time; time modified by the intelligence of the people trying to break the system. The exorbitant wages in the financial sector have ensured that a vast number of the best and brightest have been attracted to it for the last 30 years. For every so called expert government regulator you will have a hundred real experts trying to twist and break what has been setup.

The best, smartest and most experienced in the financial world are not going to be involved in producing any new effective regulation. They will be doing everything they can to wring out every last bit of profit possible as they break it. The most successfully and best connected are probably doing their best to break anything that may be embryonically forming, even as I type this (ie - ensuring ineffective regulation).

No, I don't know the solution. I wont even pretend to.

The obvious solution is to pay the regulators crazy money too to attract the brightest and best

[Bartholomeus Crane]

How is that not the same as saying: "Any regulation the people could possibly come up with is bound to fail"?

Any regulation anyone could possibly come up with is bound to fail. Humans are the masters of learning the patterns and intricacies of a system and then learning how to break those systems to their own advantage, it is simply a matter of time; time modified by the intelligence of the people trying to break the system. The exorbitant wages in the financial sector have ensured that a vast number of the best and brightest have been attracted to it for the last 30 years. For every so called expert government regulator you will have a hundred real experts trying to twist and break what has been setup.

The best, smartest and most experienced in the financial world are not going to be involved in producing any new effective regulation. They will be doing everything they can to wring out every last bit of profit possible as they break it. The most successfully and best connected are probably doing their best to break anything that may be embryonically forming, even as I type this (ie - ensuring ineffective regulation).

No, I don't know the solution. I wont even pretend to.

The obvious solution is to pay the regulators crazy money too to attract the brightest and best

Or, simply, forget about writing "The one regulation to rule them all.", and accept that we need a constantly evolving set of regulations following the system around. Yes, following, so from the outset I acknowledge that regulation will never be perfect, or be able to perfectly predict what will happen.

But lets be clear here, that is not what got us in this mess. This wasn't some regulation failure, or regulation not being able to catch up. This was the financial advisers, notably Greenspan and consorts, convincing the politicians to take regulation out of the picture entirely (or at least as much as possible) with the promise that the market would regulate itself. That experiment went dramatically wrong. So now we know that, lets discard such stupid notions and bring regulations and regulators back into the picture again.

To give that up in advance, because there's no one regulation that can do everything all the time, is conceding defeat before the battle even started. Obviously the banks and financial institutions are going to fight it. But lets be realistic here: either it is done peacefully now, or all those bankers and masters of the universe might find themselves at the pointy end of a pitchfork with the people doing it for them.

(Having said that, the chance of that happening in this political climate, especially in the US, are pretty dim.)

[Lallante]

Why not do what we are about to do with taxes (though only to a weak extent) and make a "spirit of" rule rather than an overly prescriptive set of regulations - i.e. make it illegal (and the company directors personally criminally liable) for a company to act against the spirit of some general regulatory principle (e.g. engineering 'around' rules).

Experience in other countries has shown this can drastically reduce the amount of "aggressive" structuring even if its rarely enforced - the risk/threat is enough.

[Bartholomeus Crane]

Why not do what we are about to do with taxes (though only to a weak extent) and make a "spirit of" rule rather than an overly prescriptive set of regulations - i.e. make it illegal (and the company directors personally criminally liable) for a company to act against the spirit of some general regulatory principle (e.g. engineering 'around' rules).

Experience in other countries has shown this can drastically reduce the amount of "aggressive" structuring even if its rarely enforced - the risk/threat is enough.

Like a 'framework law'? Well, the problem currently is that the risk-reward relationship is heavily biased towards reward: even if you get caught nothing serious will happen.

So, basically, if the rewards are that high, the fallout for breaking the law, framework or not, should be equally massive. But, how can you serious harm a bank that you can't allow to fail?

[Ophichius]

Why not do what we are about to do with taxes (though only to a weak extent) and make a "spirit of" rule rather than an overly prescriptive set of regulations - i.e. make it illegal (and the company directors personally criminally liable) for a company to act against the spirit of some general regulatory principle (e.g. engineering 'around' rules).

Experience in other countries has shown this can drastically reduce the amount of "aggressive" structuring even if its rarely enforced - the risk/threat is enough.

Like a 'framework law'? Well, the problem currently is that the risk-reward relationship is heavily biased towards reward: even if you get caught nothing serious will happen.

So, basically, if the rewards are that high, the fallout for breaking the law, framework or not, should be equally massive. But, how can you serious harm a bank that you can't allow to fail?

Not to be snarky, (Well, a bit), but why not nuke it from orbit and let the rest of the financial sector pick up the pieces? I don't really see "Do this and we'll shut you down, take your shit, and redistribute it to people who aren't breaking the rules." as too harsh a punishment.

Now, I'm sure there's all sorts of good reasons not to do this, or at least okay reasons. Well, there are reasons anyways.

But I'm a dumb code geek without an ounce of finance sense. So explain to me why what I just suggested is A) Bad B) Going to cause the downfall of western civilization as we know it C) A direct precursor to the machine revolt of 2015.

-O

[Lallante]

Why not do what we are about to do with taxes (though only to a weak extent) and make a "spirit of" rule rather than an overly prescriptive set of regulations - i.e. make it illegal (and the company directors personally criminally liable) for a company to act against the spirit of some general regulatory principle (e.g. engineering 'around' rules).

Experience in other countries has shown this can drastically reduce the amount of "aggressive" structuring even if its rarely enforced - the risk/threat is enough.

Like a 'framework law'? Well, the problem currently is that the risk-reward relationship is heavily biased towards reward: even if you get caught nothing serious will happen.

So, basically, if the rewards are that high, the fallout for breaking the law, framework or not, should be equally massive. But, how can you serious harm a bank that you can't allow to fail?

Not to be snarky, (Well, a bit), but why not nuke it from orbit and let the rest of the financial sector pick up the pieces? I don't really see "Do this and we'll shut you down, take your shit, and redistribute it to people who aren't breaking the rules." as too harsh a punishment.

Now, I'm sure there's all sorts of good reasons not to do this, or at least okay reasons. Well, there are reasons anyways.

But I'm a dumb code geek without an ounce of finance sense. So explain to me why what I just suggested is A) Bad B) Going to cause the downfall of western civilization as we know it C) A direct precursor to the machine revolt of 2015.

-O

You don't need to. The clue was in my original proposal - PERSONAL CRIMINAL LIABILITY for directors. This is hardly unprecedented - see Health and Safety legislation, Money Laundering legislation, Environmental legislation etc.

If people like Bob Diamond could potentially go to prison if their departments peons act up, you can bet your ass there will be a cultural shift and a hell of a lot better compliance monitoring pretty damn quick.

[Rodj Blake]

Interesting theory regarding Gordon Brown selling off Britain's gold at rock-bottom prices in 1999...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance...ck-down-price/

TLDR: JP Morgan was in deep trouble following some bad trading in gold derivitives, and Brown flooded the market to bail them out.

[Tsubutai]

Why not do what we are about to do with taxes (though only to a weak extent) and make a "spirit of" rule rather than an overly prescriptive set of regulations - i.e. make it illegal (and the company directors personally criminally liable) for a company to act against the spirit of some general regulatory principle (e.g. engineering 'around' rules).

Experience in other countries has shown this can drastically reduce the amount of "aggressive" structuring even if its rarely enforced - the risk/threat is enough.

The trouble with that, surely, is that it's massively open to abuse - unless you can guarantee the integrity and honesty of the people who decide whether or not a given action falls within the spirit of the legislation, aren't you just creating a group who have the right to fuck anybody over on a whim?

[Lallante]

Interesting theory regarding Gordon Brown selling off Britain's gold at rock-bottom prices in 1999...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance...ck-down-price/

TLDR: JP Morgan was in deep trouble following some bad trading in gold derivitives, and Brown flooded the market to bail them out.

If this is true the moral hazard implied is literally unbelievable in scale.

[elmicker]

Interesting theory regarding Gordon Brown selling off Britain's gold at rock-bottom prices in 1999...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance...ck-down-price/

TLDR: JP Morgan was in deep trouble following some bad trading in gold derivitives, and Brown flooded the market to bail them out.

So what you're saying is Brown saved the world's banking system not once, but twice?

[elmicker]

If this is true the moral hazard implied is literally unbelievable in scale.

global finance system being a corrupt piece of shit? nbs