I would like to ask a question.

Given the change in regulation and the disasterous policies of the worst Chancellor in history can the blame for this global disaster be laid at his door?

My reasoning is as follows:

AIG FP was the principle underwriter of mortgages both sub prime and prime, in 2000 they began gearing up this division.

AIG FP was based in Mayfair and their loses reduced the AAA rating of their parent which induced a cash call this directly led to Lehmans failure and we all know the rest.

Now why base yourself in the UK?

Kind regards

John

You often state the cause for the boom, and subsequent bust, was the government’s relaxation of the regulation of bank cash and capital.

Please can you give specific details of the changes in the regulation. I would like to know exactly what the requirements were before and after the government relaxed them.

I understand that lowering the banks reserve requirements will inevitably cause credit inflation through the money-multiplier effect. I assume this is the mechanism you believe caused the boom.

Can you demonstrate (in figures) that the changes in regulation led directly the the credit boom, and that the size of the boom (and bust) was in line with what one would expect given the relaxation of capital and cash requirements.

Reply: I have done so in previous posts. Roughly bank balance sheets expanded by 50% on the same capital base thanks to Basle.

Regards,
Graeme Howard

We know they think we are and in truth we must be, because only a short while ago MPs were justifying their pay rises on the grounds that since running the fifth largest economy in the world was a big job, they all ought to get a spanking big pay rise too.

Now, oddly enough, the focus is not on the MPs pay but the pay of bankers who, after all worked within the regulatary framework set up by the politicians.

And of course, Gordon Brown our self appointed Prime Minister and former chancelor – that is the man in charge of the british economy for a decade – blams it all on the USA.

Talk about passing the buck.

We know the list of Labour unelected meddlers is getting longer by the day.

‘Lord’ Kinnock, still obliged by his pension to the European Union.
‘Lord’ M(andels)on, twice (resigned-ed) Labour cabinet member and still receiving his pension from the European Union.

‘Lord’ Ahmed. a convicted criminal.

And ‘Lord’ Myners. A ( ex financial sector director-ed) and extremely rich as a result of Gordon Browns financial (mis) engineering that has led the country to the dire situation we find ourselves in just now.

‘Lord’ Myners has the bare faced cheek to criticize Fred Goodwin for taking a pension. The Brass neck to criticize the ‘practices’ of the City of London.

I do not criticize Myners for his wealth, I do criticize him for his hypocracy.

———-
Amusing defination of ‘hyprocracy’.

What Democracy turns into when all of the politicians in your country (mislead and spin-ed).

Like us he is mystified why this convoluted and vastly expensive method of engendering increased lending has been adopted and why the existing shareholders and creditors have been given such a good deal at the probable expense of the taxpayer.

Is there any danger of a conflict of interest at the heart of the government cabal making these enormous decisions? Surely it’s not ALL naievity and incompetence?
We were asked today if it’s coincidence that both troubled banks hail from Scotland as do the 2 major government players – and the families and friends of prudent Scotsmen invariably hold shares in their banks?
Never thought of that but how do our decision-makers deal with potential conflicts of financial interest? Surely they’re not as cavalier with their own funds as they are with ours!

Sounds like someone’s head will roll over the Goodwin pension fiasco. Gordon will ensure it’s Myners rather than his…but how long can we allow the 6 current directors who apparently waived through this unnecessary arrangement in October to remain on the board of OUR bank?