4 ms·
Yes, let's even look at London. Stupidly reliant on banking, billions defrauded via Libor fixing etc. What happens when there's a "credit crunch"[1]? Quantita
by anexprogrammer 11y ago
Yes, let's even look at London. Stupidly reliant on banking, billions defrauded via Libor fixing etc.
What happens when there's a "credit crunch"[1]? Quantitative Easing! [2]
The 50-60% of the economy not in banking, and not needing a loan at the moment, is talked into a recession by the twits in the media.
The SaaS business in Manchester, Leeds or Newcastle didn't change, lose customers, or become more risky, but the banks won't lend because the whole banking sector became suspect, so they just lost their cashflow.
Perhaps the problem is that the entire country wasn't working for the dishonest banks[3]? Presumably watching Wall Street and Liar's Poker every morning with the cornflakes?
Yet the first thing retrenched in a recession is optional services - like loans, insurance. It's no longer possible to trade our way out of recessions like the UK, and much of the world, did postwar ("export or die"). We solved a postwar recession of far higher percentage of GDP via creation and trade.
George Osborne has reduced the rate of increase of the debt a bit.
We're left with the ineffectiveness, and downright fraudulence, of quantitative easing and austerity.
If you're old enough to remember the 80s, you'll remember that was no better. With the added fun of 15% mortgage rates.
No thanks. More metal bashing please. More encouragement of every sector that isn't in the square mile. A diverse, resilient, economy.
[1] I love this euphemism (/s). The biggest fraud in human history and the media calls it the credit crunch.
[2] Print money to give to the banks, to encourage them to lend, that they use to pad their bottom line. Repeat numerous times, as though it is effective. Toughen up capital requirements to further encourage use on the bank rather than advertised purpose.
Sending cheques to each voter GW Bush style would be more effective getting money into the business economy.
[3] Unlike retail, pharmaceutical, industrial and a dozen other sectors banking regulation was abolished wholesale.
- cturner 11y agoClearly you're angry, but the post you're replying to has a point. There is a tendency for countries to shed manufacturing and move into other sectors, and it's often a sign of success rather than decline. When there's a major economic event, all of the other competing philosophies zoom out of the desert seeking followers like Small Gods. The risk is that if you get driven by your anger rather than your mind, you'll find yourself in the arms of a new bizareness, rather than something better.
- anexprogrammer 11y agoNot angry in the least. Just very cynical of suggestions banking is better than more industrial sectors. Besides it's not like Detroit or Sheffield could reinvent themselves as a banking centre without extreme subsidies to encourage mass relocations. Money neither has. Even for ROI you'd have to go back a very long way to do worse than RBS, and will probably be sitting on that loss for another decade or more. Banking does have several advantages - get big enough and the taxpayer will bail you out. So the downside becomes an externality. That is not good for encouraging ethics. Also through the miracle of fiat money and fractional reserve banking you get to print your own! You have to wonder therefore how they manage to make such a bloody mess of it so often. Oh of course - greed and total lack of adequate regulation.